Jump to content

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 648: Line 648:


Thanks!
Thanks!

== 16:47:22, 23 May 2019 review of submission by Ryan Mindo ==
{{Lafc|username=Ryan Mindo|ts=16:47:22, 23 May 2019|declined=User:Ryan_Mindo/sandbox}}


My article was rejected due to lack of cited sources to indicate notability. I'm a little unclear on what this means. I guess I just need a solid definition of what you guys consider "notable" so I can work on getting reviewed, etc, by the right people and organizations.

[[User:Ryan Mindo|Ryan Mindo]] ([[User talk:Ryan Mindo|talk]]) 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:47, 23 May 2019

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

13:54:49, 8 May 2019 review of submission by Musa lawi mafolo


May 17

00:47:20, 17 May 2019 review of draft by THX1136


I recently had an article reviewed which was declined for unacceptable sources by Wiki standards. I understand why one of my sources was not acceptable per the guidelines mentioned by the reviewer. There was a second source which I felt met the criteria along with a third source that was identified as a good source. I mentioned this to the reviewer who graciously gave things a second look. The reviewer thought the source in question was "self published" which disqualifies it, in a manner of speaking. I contend that the assumption the reviewer made was in error. Here is a brief description why I believe that.

The site that the article is on and the article itself are by 2 different and unrelated individuals. The site (Arf! Arf! Records) is administered by Aram Heller; the "info" article included on that site was written by Tom Tourville. Tourville is an author who writes about the music scene of the 60s in IA and MN and is not connected to the Arf! Arf! site nor the subject of my article in any direct manner. In short, I believe Heller "reposted/reprinted" Tourville's article on the Arf! Arf! site. To me that puts the article in the same category as an article included in a magazine or newspaper written as an op-ed or by a staff writer/reporter. I was wondering how I could get a second opinion on the source (Arf! Arf!)? If the same conclusion is made then I will continue to work to improve the sourcing of the article itself. Thank you for you consideration in this matter. THX1136 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi THX1136. Can you figure out where Heller reprinted Tourville's article from? I suspect he reprinted it from the liner notes of the two parts of Arf! Arf!'s The IGL rock story - that Tourville was being paid to write something that would help sell a collection of IGL songs. The Johnston, Iowa, public library has the CDs. Can you borrow them through your local library or make a road trip to examine them?
Of greater concern to me is that the draft cites discogs and last.fm, both of which are on the WP:NOTRSMUSIC list. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tom has a book out on IGL which he published back in the early to mid 90s if I remember correctly. From the title of the book it appears to be focused on the 200 plus recordings that came out of the studio. I have a query in to Tourville, but have received no reply yet. There is a copy of the book available at ebay, but I'm not sure I want to spend the $30 or so to buy it and then find it does not have the info I'm looking for on the studio itself. I emailed John Senn to see if he can locate articles that may have been published in local papers about the studio and he seems willing to check around for those. I work near Johnston so I will check there to see what I can find on that front.
On the discogs and last.fm issue. I need to read your reference. I used the discogs site as a reference to back up the values of the recording mentioned in the article. I assume from your mention that the cite is of no worth due to the nature of the discogs site. Thank you for pointing that out. Even though I've been editing for awhile at Wikipedia, I always appreciate any help anyone has to offer. It helps me to get things right the first time hopefully. I was thinking about beginning to strip out info that used cites from the IGL book. Would that be a good step to take or should I wait to see if I can find sources that are acceptable that support what I've already written? Again, thank you for your help and insight on this matter.THX1136 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@THX1136: Very little information is available about Sweet Memories Publishing. I'm willing to assume that it is not a self-publisher unless evidence to the contrary turns up. The authors are not independent of the topic, so the book doesn't count toward notability, but it can be used as a reliable source. What it is being used to support doesn't seem unduly self-serving. Just be sure that the bulk of the draft comes from independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:06:29, 17 May 2019 review of draft by Isaac Omar


Isaac Omar (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am the creator of the Bukura Somo article. Secondly, I was born and raised in Dawa Zone in which the sonal administration wasn't exist at that time. The whole region was called Sidamo Province. Therefore, I am writing about something I know at first hand knowledge of it. I believe the reviewer of my article has no current events in Ethiopia at all and Somali regional state in particular. I was there at the celebration Dawa Zone on March 22, 2016. I also, gave you a reference regarding information contained in Liban Zone,in Somali state. Someone has posted inaccurate information. Lahey, Qadaduma, Moyale, are no longer in Liban Zone, but Dawa Zone. Furthermore, if your agent or editor is actually search how many zones are there in Somali State, he or she will find that there are 11 zones, in which the Dawa Zone is one of them. Please review the following links, and let me know. Thanks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1V1lfD3yM https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dawa_Zone_1.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO1V1lfD3yM https://www1.wfp.org/news/wfp-resumes-food-distributions-ethiopias-dawa-zone


Isaac Omar Greetings. Pls note that what we need are multiple (at least 3) independent (secondary source), reliable sources such as from major newspapers directly talk about the subject in depth and in length for verification and not personal account the editor knowledge of the subject. (see the comment on the grey panel on top of the draft). Hope this help and btw the sources can be in any languages.. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:47:08, 17 May 2019 review of submission by Onglipo

Submission Declined, reason: additional references meeting these criteria should be added

Will TV show references from youtube National TV Doordarshan 1 2 and Regional TV 3 be sufficient for re-evaluation? Onglipo (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:38, 17 May 2019 review of submission by Marthanewson


Hi! Thanks for the review. I don't know why the article is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. It is written impartially, uses a number of reliable sources (including academic articles, museums, and musical archives) and links to a number of other notable composers and poets. As an academic myself, I've been very careful to avoid including any bias. Marthanewson (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marthanewson: Nonsense like "and has had commissions and performances across the world, earning him the title 'The Composer Between Man and Music'" is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The cited source is an unscientific survey asking composers and musicologists about themselves and their opinions. Newson was one of 37 who responded (very briefly). No one was awarded the title 'The Composer Between Man and Music'. If you have a close connection to the topic you are writing about, you have a conflict of interest, and should disclose it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:47, 17 May 2019 review of submission by Mlawsn


Because this artical I made is about Roman Legal Affects!

Mlawsn (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlawsn: - we have plenty of articles both on the formation of modern law as well as Roman law. If you have content then please add it to one of these - if and only if you have suitable sourcing for your content. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:28, 17 May 2019 review of submission by Mpampismate


I hope that the review of this article is accepted by the community for these reasons: The article was corrected into a more neutral format. Any sales 'speak' was removed. Online and publicly available sources are referenced to back up key items. There are already references in Wikipedia to Pix4Dmapper but there is no Pix4Dmapper article. There are articles in Wikipedia for similar products (PhotoModeler, RealityCapture, Leica Photogrammetry Suite) and they were used as templates for the Pix4Dmapper article. Pix4Dmapper has been around for many years, is one of the first softwares for photogrammetry and is used in almost every country in the world.


Mpampismate (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mpampismate, this is not the place to post the full text of drafts. As has already been pointed out to you at the draft itself, there is already an article on this subject at Pix4D. GMGtalk 13:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:32, 17 May 2019 review of submission by Shieru2411


Hello , I want to publish the page due to "Che Shieru" (person) will be do collaborating with top fashion brand such as Issey Miyake and more She will debut herself in America and this will be good to have her wikipedia page to use for entertainment and news sources for media in US and worldwide. Shieru2411 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Shieru2411. The article you created has been nominated for deletion as it includes essentially no content, and no indication why the subject should qualify for an article on Wikipedia. You may wish to review our notability criteria for biographies, and if the individual has been the subject of sustained in-depth coverage in reliable published sources (usually things like books, magazines and newspapers, and excluding routine directory entries, press releases, and official website), then you should include that content in the draft and submit it for review. GMGtalk 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:21, 17 May 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:F260:C6B0:B0CB:D3F8:CFC:33ED

please help?

2600:1700:F260:C6B0:B0CB:D3F8:CFC:33ED (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

02:48:24, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Meshuggah101


Meshuggah101 (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:17:55, 18 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dbexpert


I recently submitted "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aqua_Data_Studio". Before I submitted this article, I read carefully the various online documents that describe the submission process for Wikipedia.

The article submission was rejected. I can accept that in itself. The reviewer (Zanhe) left the reason "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". Again, I can accept that in itself, although I was hoping that this article would overcome the threshold. However, the reviewer left the comment "Article was previously deleted as not notable, see "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aqua_Data_Studio".

Does this mean that the reviewer rejected this article because a different article with the same name but different content was rejected in 2010?The article that I submitted is completely different from the article that was rejected in 2010. There is no connection between the two articles except for the fact that they share the same name and refer to the same software.

If the reviewer actually made their decision based on the content of the article that I submitted rather than what happened to the other article in 2010, then I can accept that. However, from the comment that the reviewer left, it seems that this may not be the case.

Dbexpert (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dbexpert. I do not take the reviewer's comment to mean that they "rejected this article because a different article with the same name but different content was rejected in 2010", but a question about a reviewer's state of mind would be best addressed to that specific reviewer, rather than a general help desk. If you find their answer unsatisfactory, then return here. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:26, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Dianahendricks

I submitted a wiki page for review regarding Jaston Williams, a recognized playwright, novelist, actor and humorist. There was a copyright violation as per the reviewer, with helpful advice on how to correct that. The article was deleted and is no longer available. Now, may I rewrite the article in attempt to correct the issues and resubmit for potential approval again? Thank you, Diana Hendricks


Diana Hendricks (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dianahendricks You can ask for WP:REFUND from the admin who deleted the article - see HERE. Pls make sure when you rewrite the article, make sure you write the article on own words in neutral point of view and free of copyright infriegnement and support the content claimed with independent, reliable sources. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:55:35, 18 May 2019 review of draft by Ritz082


Ritz082 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC) I need help in developing article. I am not sure if I have done it correctly. As some of my past solo work was not good enough, I need guidance and suggestions. my work is in draft The Minds Journal.[reply]

Hi Ritz082. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. You will receive feedback when a reviewer reaches it. The current backlog is about three and a half months. If you need guidance before then, you might try reaching out to a WikiProject relevant to your topic, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Websites. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:22, 18 May 2019 review of draft by Innovative Username


Hi there, I was wondering if I could have some help setting up the infobox and in particular getting PAL's logo in it. I've never filled out the fair use rationale before and don't totally understand it. I think it's super important to have the logo and a short infobox.

Innovative Username (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Innovative Username Greetings, you can use Template:Infobox organization. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your response. Do you happen to understand how to do the fair use rationale thing? I've now seen how to do the infobox - quite easy in visual mode even if it is a bit slower- better for me as a newbie, haha. But the fair use rationale seems really confusing based on the documentation online and in the help pages. Thanks. Innovative Username (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Innovative Username and Nick Moyes: Hi Nick Since you are expert in image uploaded /fair use knowledge, would appreciate if you would lend a had to help Innovative User. Thank in advance. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA and Innovative Username: Oh, I wish I was an expert - you flatter me. In fact, I've never needed to use the fair use rationale, either, with anything I've uploaded. But it should be straight forward for a logo for an organisation about which we have an article. First off, however, I can find nothing in Wikipedia:Non-free content, Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline or Wikipedia:Use rationale examples to suggest that a non-free image can't be added to a draft article. Yet, somehow such an image does nothing to demonstrate notability, so I might have expected these pages to state that a NFU-image is only suitable for use on an article once it is in mainspace. I presume the image is this one? (I've not been to the official website as I receive security warnings about both the English and Arabic versions, so I'm not going there, even thoughI think it's just the lack of an https: connection.) I think the example used at the top of Wikipedia:Use rationale examples seems pretty close to what you'd need, and I would reduce the file size to make it only just suitable for use on-screen on Wikipedia within an infobox. To help you, you can insert the {{Non-free use rationale logo}} template into the summary section of the image, as explained in that template's documentation (or you can simply copy and paste in the text from the section entitled 'Syntax'.) I think you would also add the {{Non-free logo}} template to the image description section so as to warn others not to use it elsewhere - again, its application is described in the documentation on that template's page.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about the logo right now. I'd focus much more on making your draft article sound more like a short, succinct encyclopaedia article than the long, overly-detailed and heavily promotional draft that it is at present. To do that, I would pare back all the trivia (e.g. the Key staff section), trying just to keep information which only explains what the organisation does, citing sources that show the world at large has taken note of it (and there's quite a bit of coverage in Spanish media, I notice) and cite only sources that talk about the organisation, instead of repeatedly citing content written by that organisation. Although I can only read the abstract, I would have thought this research paper might have help to demonstrate the organisation's notability had it not been written in such an essay-like and rather long-winded manner. I'm sorry I can't offer much more advice. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Innovative Username and Nick Moyes: Hi Nick, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to answer the question and provide the advice. To note, my understanding is that if content or images or file which the non copyright free and if it is uploaded to Wikipedia irregardless in the draft space or main space, it is still considered a violation of copyright infringement (COPYVIO). I often tag draft page which the the content is COPYVIO and the article got deleted for such violation. Cheers and thanks again. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help all. I will try my best to do this. :) Innovative Username (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:55, 18 May 2019 review of submission by S.H.Waqif


Hello, I am Houston, TX. I have edited my article and added further information on Dr. Manzar Kazmi. Please let me know what I need to do to initiate Dr. Kazmi on Wikepedia. He is the author of several books and articles. Thank you for your guidance and support. Waqif 16:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi S.H.Waqif. Having written several books and articles is insufficient reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about him. The draft cites a single source, which is not enought to show that he is notable as a writer or notable as an academic. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for uncritical biographies written to praise or honour the subject. You may wish to consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:00, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Gedgmoss


I've worked hard to improve the citations for this article, some copyright stuff has been removed, but I'm worried when it is finally reviewed it will be rejected or deleted and all my work lost.

(I'd appreciate some further guidance on how it can be improved? The rejecting editor has not answered my questions or does not have time to do so.)

thank you!

Gedgmoss (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Ged MossGedgmoss (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gedgmoss (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gedgmoss. I've left a belated welcome basket of links on your talk page. Other links you may find useful are: Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Articles for Creation is an iterative process. Drafts are often declined multiple times on the road to eventual acceptance. Use the time between reviews to improve the draft as much as you can by following the reviewer's advice and the applicable policies and guidelines. Spending time editing other articles can also pay off by building your Wikipedia skills. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you aren't sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:19, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Robeatlas

This article was rejected by @AngusWOOF: for the following reason

WP:TOOSOON. Only one role in a TV series, does not meet WP:ENT

I created it because it struck me as very weird that wikipedia didn't have an article on someone who was a major character in the most popular british drama of the year (Line of Duty). I'm not really au fait with the exact ins and out of the wikpedia notability requirements, so it certainly might have been the right choice but I would like to ask for clarification of the reasoning here. WP:ENT states that someone is notable if they "Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Now this is not especially clearly worded, but I took it as Multiple meaning 2 and that notability was meant in the wikipedia sense (that is, is eligible for a wikipedia article). If so, it comes down to what significant roles means, because as well as Line of Duty, Sandall was a main cast member in Love, Lies and Records, a drama series that is obviously notable. Broken (where she was a supporting actor) and Moving On (main character but one episode of an anthology series) seem more marginal. Robeatlas (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robeatlas. The purpose of the general notability guideline (in a nutshell, "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") is to ensure editors can write a full, accurate, and balanced encyclopedia article without resorting to original research.
Subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:ENTERTAINER are meant to let us accept topics that are likely to satisfy the general notability guideline, but cannot easily be shown to do so. An actor who starred in two blockbuster Pakistani TV series in the 1970s, for example, probably had plenty written about them at the time, but the language and location of the sources may make them difficult to access. In such a case a stub is an acceptable placeholder until an Urdu-speaking Wikipedian searches the basement stacks of the National Library in Islamabad and, using the sources they find there, writes the ideal encyclopedia article.
If Sandall's role in Love, Lies and Records was significant enough that independent, reliable sources wrote about her at length at the time, then they should be easy to find, they'll be online and in English. Add them to the in-depth sources in connection with Line of Duty, and the topic will meet the general notability guideline. If the earlier sources can't be found, they probably don't exist, which would mean that her earlier roles were not significant enough for our purposes. If that's the case, don't rush to create a stub, because if she disappears from show business tomorrow there may never be enough sources to write a proper encyclopedia article about her. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:40, 18 May 2019 review of submission by Zroxuf


Zroxuf (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I am having trouble submitting my draft "Kiarash Behain" as the reviewer declined our submission claiming “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.”

Our client is a director working in the Entertainment industry and we have seen multiple Wiki pages created for similar people in his profession. Can you please assist us with properly adjusting our submission so that we can be re-evaluated? Thank you for your time.

Zroxuf (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zroxuf: - Your statement makes it very clear that you are a paid editor - you MUST disclose this if you're going to make paid edits (I've dropped the template details on your talk page - please let me know if you need help carrying them out). We won't be able to progress further until you've done so. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:20, 18 May 2019 review of draft by Chilledude


I'd like to find out where my submission is in the review queue and which page I should be watching to monitor its progress. Thanks.

Chilledude (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To other reviewers this draft was declined yesterday, failing GNG (correctly), however it could use a look from someone better equipped with WP:NACADEMIC as his journal work may provide notability through that route. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

07:43:42, 19 May 2019 review of submission by Orenah oal

Hello,

I've made the necessary changes in the article AlignMeter so that it now has a lead section. What else needs to be done for it to be accepted?

Orenah oal (talk) 07:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:57:43, 19 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Orenah oal


Hello,

In the creation of this page, I was notified that the sources are not "independent, reliable, published", but in fact they are all well-known, independent and reliable: www.photonics.com www.laserfocusworld.com thewindherald.com marketresearchperiodical.com www.industrynewsdaily.us

Please advise. Thank you


Orenah oal (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined because it reads like an advertisement. Theroadislong (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:37, 19 May 2019 review of submission by Mcvicworld


Mcvicworld (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i am wondering why Quick Tv Africa was deleted. Its one of Africa's fastest growing media house and the only one promoting Africa's art and culture globally I want that article restored

Hi Mcvicworld. The most recent version of the article wasn't deleted, it was moved from article space to Draft:Quick Tv Africa because it cites no reliable, independent sources. That's the same reason an earlier version of the article was deleted, see the linked discussion. None of the reasons you've given above ("fastest growing", "only one", and you "want that article restored") are reasons for Wikipedia to have an encyclopedia article on the subject.
You wrote "Victor Vote" on your user page. If you were trying to communicate that you are the founder of Quick Tv Africa, then you have a conflict of interest when writing about the topic, and should plainly declare that on your user page. Editing with a conflict of interest is a supremely bad idea, and is strongly discouraged. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:38, 19 May 2019 review of draft by SimaDC

 im wondering why everytime I add text and information it automatically deleted some parts. compare to the the original text and the publish text

SimaDC (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC) and Where is the save page button?[reply]

16:48:36, 19 May 2019 review of draft by Jussi Karlgren

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

hullo reviewers,

i have been asked by some colleagues to improve this page draft which was declined earlier. i am not entirely comfortable doing so, since i am partially involved with the company itself and am clearly COI-ed, but the person who would be best suited to do so has recently left their position at the institution which understands the sorts of things we work with (and i would not want anyone on the staff of the company itself editing a text about their employer). i did fix some things that were clearly a bit less wikipedialike in style, added some further references, and clarified that some of the references indeed are third-party references and indepedent (which was not entirely obvious). i would rather not work more on the text without some guidance.

it appears the draft was declined by a wikipedian who now has been permanently blocked from editing, and thus i cannot easily ask them to peek at the page again. does the queue move forward even without the original reviewer? Jussi Karlgren (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jussi Karlgren (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jussi Karlgren: The draft is in the pool to be reviewed, and someone will get to it eventually. Often each reviewing cycle is performed by a different editor. That gives submitters the benefit of input from people who may have different strengths. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:54, 19 May 2019 review of submission by Asfabutt2001

I was asked to create a page for Ollie Kendall as a duo with Josh Carrott, however they already have one called Jolly and Josh Carrot also has one which is info on about him. As there is not much info about Ollie in wikipedia apart from a little mention from Josh Carrott's page. Is there any way I can try to create a page about info for Ollie Kendall?

Asfabutt2001 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asfabutt2001: Who asked you to create a page for Ollie Kendall? Editors should not act at the behest of someone else without disclosing the connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:51, 19 May 2019 review of submission by Jayaneeshvj

{{SAFESUBST:Void

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING A RE-REVIEW ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->}}

Jayaneeshvj (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

04:12:33, 20 May 2019 review of draft by Hariyadav


doramharishyadav 04:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hariyadav: - articles for living persons have more specific referencing requirements than, say, an article on a mountain. This means instead of general references like you have (though you've put them under "external links"), most content needs to be individually sourced to a particular reference - the blue numbers you see in other articles. These are called "inline references". Referencing for beginners can tell you how to do this. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:00:04, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Amna21


I want to understand why our page is being rejected. We have shared several references by leading newspapers of Pakistan such as Dawn, Tribune etc. Please can you help in highlighting which references are causing a problem in the acceptance of the page?

Thanks, Amna.

Amna21 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amna21 have resubmitted it on your behalf as I believe the rejection was an error. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:25, 20 May 2019 review of draft by Ladkap


Ladkap (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladkap: - what help are you looking for - as far as I can tell, this version of the draft hasn't been declined (last decline in March) and remains in the pool. The backlog is particularly tough at the moment and it could well be a fair length of time until review. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:27, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Kranthi Kumar Mukkera


Kranthi Kumar Mukkera (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that like most of us here, you are not notable enough for there to be an article about you. Theroadislong (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:26, 20 May 2019 review of draft by 217.147.174.57

I  would like to know how is it possible to speed up the process of the page reviewing and publishing.


217.147.174.57 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@217.147.174.57: - in a general sense (as in for everyone), you can't. It's dependent on there being loads of submissions and not enough experienced reviewers, leading to a supply/demand issue.
For you yourself, it probably helps things slightly if you put your four best sources (for showing notability) on the talk page, so that reviewers don't need to examine every source. I can't say this will speed it up, it just takes one obstacle out of the way. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:28:45, 20 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Noixdegalle


Hi, I noticed that my article was rejected, and I wanted to ask if you could elaborate on the reasons for this? The EdTech market in Oslo has several companies that are described on Wikipedia (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WeVideo, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahoot!, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DragonBox), and Inspera is one of the big ones that seems to be missing. The EdTech industry is growing in Oslo, and Inspera is one of the large players (and is often mentioned as such, e.g. https://medium.com/the-edtech-world/edtech-norway-dff10491e68f).


Noixdegalle (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noixdegalle. Medium is a group blog, so not a reliable source. Even if it were a reliable source, its passing mention of Inspera would do nothing to establish notability. Whether the industry is growing, whether Inspera is a large player, and whether Wikipedia articles about its competitors exist, are all irrelevant to the evaluation of whether Inspera is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:34:52, 20 May 2019 review of draft by Corowitz


Corowitz (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's taking so long for my article to be approved?

@Corowitz: - the fact that there are thousands of AfC drafts, dozens every day, and only a relatively limited number of experienced volunteers willing to spend their time reviewing drafts.
I would suggest putting the four best sources that show notability on the talk page, as this can ease reviewing when there are a long list of references. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:17, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Eadredwallace


Eadredwallace (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


What do I need to do to become more notable?

16:40:17, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Asfabutt2001

I was asked to create a page for Ollie Kendall as a duo with Josh Carrott, however they already have one called Jolly and Josh Carrot also has one which is info on about him. As there is not much info about Ollie in wikipedia apart from a little mention from Josh Carrott's page. Is there any way I can try to create a page about info for Ollie Kendall?

(Update -->)Sorry my english is not very good, I didn't mean that I was asked, I meant that I wanted to create a page for Ollie Kendall but the draft was rejected because the page could've been made as a duo group but as there already is one and one page for the other partner Josh Carrott. I was making one for Ollie Kendall.

Asfabutt2001 (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asfabutt2001: Who asked you to create a page for Ollie Kendall? Editors should not act at the behest of someone else without disclosing the connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Asfabutt2001: Thank you for clarifying that. For future reference, there's no need to copy a thread forward, simply reply at the bottom of it, indenting your response one level deeper and signing with four tildes (~~~~). See Help:Talk pages for more information.
A separate article should not be created for Ollie Kendall. Josh Carrott has been redirected to Korean Englishman, where both members of the duo should be covered. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:29, 20 May 2019 review of submission by JSBenichou


I am the creator of the article draft "Tobias Sherman".

I have substantially changed the article since its initial review and decline to be purely factual with citation backing. I went into the IRC for help to get it to this stage. This is where we ended up. I believe I have done enough major changes that it deserves to be re-reviewed. Happy to make more changes if need be. JSBenichou (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JSBenichou. Examining 8 of 15 sources at random: Variety, Sports Business Daily, Yahoo! and Esports Insider #1 are passing mentions and quotes from Sherman. I'm not convinced that AList is a reliable source, but even if it is, it is a primary source interview with no independent analysis by the interviewer, as is The Score Esports. Leaders is a non-notable organization issuing a press release about a non-notable award. None of the seven do anything to establish notability. ESPN #1 appears to be largely based on a press release, but also includes some analysis by the reporter, so may count as one source toward the three independent reliable sources novices are commonly advised to cite. I conclude that the reviewer is right, no amount of editing will make this draft acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:29, 20 May 2019 review of submission by Downcycle

Hello, I thought that I submitted a request for a review earlier, but I can't find a record of it ever going through. I am not affiliated with Sherpa CRM, I just wanted to try my hand at creating a new page about an interesting business I heard about, since most of the science stuff I work with is well documented. I tried to follow the template of other well known companies and founders, but I think I conflated the two and by entering the founder's personal views on the company page, it came across as promotional. I tried trimming it way down, so it was all just facts, but I don't think it was ever re-reviewed. If it's still not acceptable I'd appreciate some advice on how to get it there. Thanks! Downcycle (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Downcycle. You posted about Sherpa CRM here, but without posing a question, so volunteers evidently didn't see anything actionable there.
The Wikipedia community has little or no appetite now for new articles about companies, especially young, small, private ones. Rejection is intended to be final, to communicate that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Consequently it's unlikely that anyone here will sink time into the draft.
I encourage you to write about something else. Your work up until this draft is of a kind much more valuable to Wikipedia, and more editing like that would be much appreciated. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. If you're determined to write about Sherpa CRM, you are a long-time editor in good standing and without a conflict of interest, so you may move the draft to mainspace. The consensus here is that it would be deleted there, but we could be wrong. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

00:39:15, 21 May 2019 review of draft by Isaac Omar


Isaac Omar (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am having issues with your editors or reviewers regarding my posts. So, what do I need to include in my post if I am writing about the subject maters that I know. such as the place I born at, about the city where I grow up. The places I visited. What reference do I need if there is not that many written material available about the area that I am writing about?

@Isaac Omar: - so personal knowledge isn't suitable for any Wikipedia article (not only could you not verify my personal knowledge, editors reading the article wouldn't be able to check whether statements were justified).
My suggestion to find some sources is to look at the other articles on the administrative zones ([see here]). Lots of the sources in them look like they might also contain content on the Dawa zone, and other sources will have counterparts for the Dawa zone (e.g. instead of the Afder zone census figures, you'd use the Dawa zone's figures).
The draft doesn't need to be as long as these ones, but some additional content probably would be worthwhile - I imagine you'll come across it while looking at the sources.
Hope that helps - this draft would be filling in a gap so looks promising Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:04:22, 21 May 2019 review of draft by 2405:205:4320:41EC:694E:EF36:C0A8:6A2C


2405:205:4320:41EC:694E:EF36:C0A8:6A2C (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:30:57, 21 May 2019 review of submission by Mn films

Draft:Moses devoss

i have several times submitted moses devoss page, but all in vein. i have tried to follow instructions but still nothing comes out, the subject doesnot have enough reliable sources. Mn films (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mn films: - the subject just doesn't appear to have enough suitable sourcing at the moment - not everything warrants a Wikipedia article. For Moses' primary areas (filmography and his songs), the works themselves would need to be notable, and I don't believe that they are Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:34, 21 May 2019 review of submission by TravisGTAGamer


This help desk is my only option to publish the article for review. Anyways, websites that are referred are reliable. The biography stated on this draft page is legitimate as there are sources for that which includes the Crime That Changed Serbia documentary film. There aren't much sources on websites but are plenty in videos like YouTube. TravisGTAGamer (talk) 08:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:41, 21 May 2019 review of submission by Ian J. Saunders


Ian J. Saunders (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for taking the time to edit my first attempt at a Wikipedia page. What would you advise me to do to ensure that what I write or what I present is more relevent?

Thank you again,

Ian

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is not a venue for you to promote yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:24, 21 May 2019 review of draft by GVTeg


My declaration of conflict of interest appears on my Draft: Paul Vinelli, but it does not state what article I am declaring the COI on. How do I add the specific article Paul Vinelli to the COI declaration? The conflict is that he is my father.

GVTeg (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GVTeg: - hi there. That COI box would go on your userpage, but I've put one on the draft's talk page which will work in its stead. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:51, 21 May 2019 review of submission by Ronmun


Dear Wikipedia Mgbo120 approvedRonmun (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC) “The ROADEX Project” for publication on 19 January 2019 and I have been intending to improve and update the page with new developments and diagrams where possible since then. As part of this I have periodically revisited the page to see anyone has offered contributions. On my last visit (today) I see that the page was moved to Draft on 4 May. This has puzzled me as I am not regular contributor to Wikipedia, more like a well-meaning novice. Can you let me know if something has happened in Wikipedia that has resulted in the page being downgraded to Draft, or is it just a case of someone else having a different view to Mgbo120? Any information that you can give will be gratefully received. With best regards Ron.[reply]

Ronmun (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronmun. Mgbo120 was caught doing things they shouldn't, they were blocked indefinitely, and some of their actions were reverted. You may resubmit Draft:The Roadex Project when you are ready. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:25, 21 May 2019 review of submission by 82.187.36.133


An article on Oye Gureje, an academic, was declined on the basis of not sufficient evidence of notability was provided. We now want to resubmit and include an important piece of information that was omitted: listing among the 1% most highly cited researchers in his field in the Web of Science. Given that some of his colleagues who are listed in Wikipedia and who are highly cited do not have this information in the articles on them, it is unclear whether this information is to be included in the article on him or whether there is another way of bringing this to the attention of the editors. This lack of clarity was the reason that information was not provided with the initial submission.

Please advise.

82.187.36.133 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Including the information would help the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

00:27:45, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Basem3.Azez1990


Basem3.Azez1990 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


01:57:59, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Stanfordai


Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am new to Wikipedia, is there someone that could possibly help me as to create the article in question?

Thank you kindly in advance!

Stanfordai (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Standordai: Hey Standorfai, just so you know I denied the draft creation because of insufficient sourcing for a biography of a living person. Of the sources provided, 2 of them are simply directory listings that do not help to establish notability (crunchbase and the CM listing), one is a primary source written by the subject himself which doesn't help establish notability (it's like saying "I'm notable because I say I'm notable"), one is to a local resource (globalpittsburg) which is really just a profile posting, and the last, the link to economictimes.indiatimes.com, just mentions him in passing, quoting him in reference to another subject, rather than discussing him in particular. You need to find reliable, secondary sources that discuss the subject. You should also review WP:NPERSON. If you have questions, let us know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:37:22, 22 May 2019 review of draft by Bagotroad


Bagotroad (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm following up on the response from editors re significant coverage in reliable and independent sources.

The references include an independent article by Julie Hosking (6). I note that I have used this article as a reference only once. This article could also be used as a reference in relation to a number of other sections including:

(a) the opening sentence: "Sharon Faye is a practicing organizational psychologist (* Hosking), who developed the theory of emotional strength (Faye and Hooper)." (b) opening paragraph: "She is managing director of corporate psychology firm Clear Perceptions (Clear Perceptions website) and founding director of the Sharon Faye Foundation (SFF website; *Hosking)" (c) Professional history; third sentence. "In addition to her academic work, Faye is a successful practicing organizational and clinically trained psychologist with twenty years experience, currently working in private practice in Subiaco, Western Australia (CP website; Hosking)" (d) professional history; sixth sentences: "Faye is the founding chair of the Sharon Faye Foundation (SFF website; Hosking) (e) Theory of emotional strength par: "With ES, Faye proposed to change the way emotion is understood and experienced in everyday life" (Faye & Hooper; Hosking).

I'm wondering if including the additional Hosking references would go some way to addressing the concerns re referencing?

Secondly, are there any sections in particular that require referencing (for example, "Clinical Use" ) which if removed would address concerns.

Thank you and regards

Hi Bagotroad. Citing Hosking more often would be a good idea. I think what the reviewer was asking for, however, was two more sources like Hosking - independent and reliable, so that the article is not just what Hosking thinks is important about Faye (and what Faye and entities close to Faye think is important). For a living person, reviewers expect an inline citation for almost everything. So removing the clinical use section would be a plus if you can't find any reliable sources to support it. The fact that you know her date of birth and educational details, but cite no source for them suggests that you have a close connection to the subject. That presents a conflict of interest, and you should disclose it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:34:54, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Immuthuppandi


Immuthuppandi (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Immuthuppandi: - hi there. Unfortunately, there isn't anything that indicates the subject is notable in the way that wikipedia defines it. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:37, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Lesenwriter


May i kindly request you to review , i have made necessary changes but i haven't heard for sometime now. Could someone please help me with this article. I hope i can do better in Wikipedia,but all i need some guidance . Many Thanks !!... Lesenwriter (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lesenwriter. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. With the current backlog, reviewers are likely to reach it within the next three months. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:52, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Kirsty Liu

I am trying to set up a Gourmet Escape page for the company I work for IMG (International Management Group) that owns the rights to it (they are the owner and organizers) so the article i created is content we have the right to use. How can i indicate that I have the right to use their content on the page? as well as all the images? Kirsty Liu (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:44, 22 May 2019 review of submission by SYED JAVED HAIDER


Sir, I would like to kindly request for a review (for Wikipedia) with consideration on following points: (1) I feel that my achievements are sufficient enough in my field for your approval. (2) It will be a source of inspiration for the individuals working in my profession and the society. (3) My position has been referred in the website of King George Medical University, Chowk, Lucknow (Home page  Faculty of Medicine  Anatomy Department – Introduction page) Thanking you very much in anticipation for the kind review.

SYED JAVED HAIDER (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:02:47, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Samirsangroula


i need wiki page for getting resister in international writer association please review it. Samirsangroula (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samirsangroula: Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:03:13, 22 May 2019 review of submission by SYED JAVED HAIDER


Sir, I would like to kindly request for a review (for Wikipedia) with consideration on following points: (1) I feel that my achievements are sufficient enough in my field for your approval. (2) It will be a source of inspiration for the individuals working in my profession and the society. (3) My position has been referred in the website of King George Medical University, Chowk, Lucknow (Home page  Faculty of Medicine  Anatomy Department – Introduction page) Thanking you very much in anticipation for the kind review.

SYED JAVED HAIDER (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:34:09, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Dolphin Scholar


Dear Supreme Arbiters of Human Knowledge,

Can I please have some more detailed feedback about why Awards International is not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia?

They are a multinational company that runs the biggest customer experience awards in the world. That seems noteworthy to me.

If this article is not permitted, I respect that. Perhaps I'll apply the same logic, however, and suggest a list of articles that should also not be on Wikipedia if 'noteworthiness' is a concern for you.

Kind regards,

Dolphin Scholar

Dolphin Scholar (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by reliable sources so that information can be verified.

We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. Your draft has no reliable sources at all, so notability cannot be established. You are free to suggest other articles which don't meet the criteria, and we can delete them if needed, thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:28, 22 May 2019 review of draft by Dgold11


I am a newbie and need help figuring out how to improve my sources to a place where my draft can be approved. That said, there is not a ton of published info about my topic. Most of what I've acquired I've requested from the institution itself and it's not published in places that would make for a "good source," but the information is true and verifiable as it came directly from the subject. Help!

Dgold11 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dgold11 Articles on Wikipedia must be adequately supported by independent reliable sources so that information can be verified. Their own website is not a suitable source for establishing notability. We only summarise what reliable, independent published sources have to say about a subject. If there are no such sources, then we cannot have an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:13:14, 22 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mukkera Kranthi

tell me how to get verified Mukkera Kranthi (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mukkera Kranthi: Wikipedia does not have a process for verifying editors. Editors are "confirmed" after a certain amount of time and making a certain number of edits.
That said, you appear to have attempted a couple of times to post a biography of yourself and a plea for medical help. Wikipedia is not a social network, and is not the place to post this sort of content -- try Facebook instead. Articles about people are only included here if the person meets the standards laid out in the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:35:51, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Ryan Mindo


Please see if I have added the citations correctly and if this is acceptable. thank you

Ryan Mindo (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryan Mindo: The citations are formatted correctly, but they are not sufficient to show that this company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Simply participating in a notable event does not make a company notable. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:52:08, 22 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nikko Curtis


I've made so many edits to this article in hopes that I could do some good and educate people about a cleaner energy company I stumbled on. I write articles regularly and am still a bit confused to why this article keeps getting denied. Not sure how this is sounding like an advertisement. I have only said facts and quoted many external sources that aren't associated with Petroteq Energy Inc. I would really appreciate your help getting this article published. Thank you, Nikko

Nikko Curtis (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:40:26, 22 May 2019 review of submission by Swordswfriends


User DGG rejected this proposed entry with the claim "Advertisement for non-notable product line." However, the entry is in line with other entries on distillers and liquor companies, and I have no relationship with the company. My intention is to flesh out this category of spirits, and I chose this small company to start with.

The rejection does not provide any constructive feedback, and seems rather flippant. Perhaps someone with a focus on alcohol-related topics could take a look and either approve or provide instruction on how to improve the entry.


Swordswfriends (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swordswfriends: - as an initial note, if you'd like additional feedback I suggest going to DGG's talk page and asking is a good step - he's normally quite happy to answer questions.
As my $0.02, I would say your sources are currently unsuitable. They are all either non-independent (linked to the seller or written in a publication that has a vested interest in the products or companies included in doing well) or don't satisfy significant coverage. For something like a rum (which as a product is relatively rare to meet notability (usually its a company)) more neutral reviews are a better method to find suitable sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - Thanks for your reply, I have contacted DGG. Regarding your feedback, I suspect I have misrepresented the article -- it is not just a rum, but rather the company as a whole that I'm writing about. If I just titled it "Distillerie Neisson" rather than "Neisson (rum)", that would probably fix that issue. In regard to sources, while two are indeed links to a seller (the only online source with the cited product details, unfortunately), I disagree that the others are non-independent. An article in Saveur would seem to satisfy significant coverage, and LuxuryExperience.com has been nominated for a Tales of the Cocktail award for its cocktail writing.
Would it be preferable to leave out the Recognition section? I suppose that does seem less neutral as an inclusion.Swordswfriends (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swordswfriends: - the recognition section is pretty small so I wouldn't say it's too problematic - it can be a major issue for company articles, but if I were reviewing I wouldn't be too concerned by it. I'd missed it were a company - in which case you should read Corporate Notability up to the end of section 3. Companies have a higher requirement for notability - multiple (I'd suggest 3 high quality sources) are needed to demonstrate sufficient notability. There's also a thing called WP:CORPDEPTH that you don't yet seem to fall into, but rules out some of the sources that are common add-ons to company articles. It could be worth dropping your thoughts on the talk page on why Saveur/LuxuryExperience satisfy the independent requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - Thanks again for your advice. I've edited the article to include additional high quality independent sources, and posted a justification for the ones previously included. I've also moved the article to "Distillerie Neisson" so as to make it clear this is a company entry rather than a product. Would it be better to submit the article as a new AfC, or plead again for a re-review? Swordswfriends (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

00:45:30, 23 May 2019 review of draft by Jenoa9


I have a draft page in for review by the editors but I want to know how to move the CONTENTS box. It is too high. Thanks for all your help!

Jenoa9 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:05, 23 May 2019 review of submission by Streamingriver

why was this page deleted Streamingriver (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was asked and answered at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Page deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:32, 23 May 2019 review of draft by Zimou Yuan


Zimou Yuan (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:06, 23 May 2019 review of draft by Gilcrease1227


Gilcrease1227 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why it keeps getting turned down for reading like an advertisement. I've frequented other pages based on other entrepreneurs and there's read the same way. Basically I'm not entirely certain how you can make a page for an entrepreneur without it sounding like an advertisement. Especially when they already have an established wikipedia page for their business. Are there any tips as to how it can be fixed because it seems subjective as to why it keeps getting declined.

Thanks!

16:47:22, 23 May 2019 review of submission by Ryan Mindo


My article was rejected due to lack of cited sources to indicate notability. I'm a little unclear on what this means. I guess I just need a solid definition of what you guys consider "notable" so I can work on getting reviewed, etc, by the right people and organizations.

Ryan Mindo (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=898447443"