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
No edit summary
Line 630: Line 630:


[[Special:Contributions/2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421|2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421]] ([[User talk:2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421|talk]]) 01:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421|2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421]] ([[User talk:2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421|talk]]) 01:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

== Request on 02:22:13, 16 April 2020 for assistance on [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission by ChristinaL.P. ==
{{anchor|02:22:13, 16 April 2020 review of submission by ChristinaL.P.}}
{{Lafc|username=ChristinaL.P.|ts=02:22:13, 16 April 2020|declinedtalk=Draft:Dina_Kao}}

<!-- Start of message -->

I have made changes to my article according to reviewer comments. How to I resubmit?

<!-- End of message -->[[User:ChristinaL.P.|ChristinaL.P.]] ([[User talk:ChristinaL.P.|talk]]) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:22, 16 April 2020

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

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


April 10

Request on 00:13:06, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fireinmyheart


My article got declined because they do not show significant coverage. I have added two external references and it is also connected to the article which is already present in wikipedia.

Fireinmyheart (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fireinmyheart, Two sources is not sufficient, nor is the article sufficiently cited inline. You need more sources. It also reads like a piece of advertising. For example, "exciting" is not a formal encyclopedic descriptor. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:07, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Celebritychoosing


Celebritychoosing (talk) 04:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebritychoosing, This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celebritychoosing, They seem to be an average set of individuals, like you or I. I was in a band in high school, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Only subjects that have received reliable coverage in multiple sources (such as newspapers) are included. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

05:48:23, 10 April 2020 review of draft by Geethmariya

We have to know how to write a proper content for my subject

Geethmariya (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geethmariya, We? Who is we? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:02, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Tsgroove


Tsgroove (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsgroove, You have not improved the draft despite repeated requests. It appears that the subject is not notable, and thus we cannot have an article about him. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:32:13, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Tejal



Mr Tejal (talk) 08:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tejal, Very few YouTubers qualify to have a Wikipedia article. You need better sources. Be careful, many Indian sources that seem reliable are not, reviewers are pretty exacting. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:37:52, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Vishakha2588


How to write the reference for the article?

Vishakha2588 (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vishakha2588. To demonstrate the correct referencing technique, I edited the "Early life and education" section. You can follow that example for other topics you may edit.
I strongly urge you not to continue working on Draft:Mohit Romesh Sharma, for the reasons I've explained on the draft. The draft has been declined again, this time by KylieTastic. If they hadn't declined it, I would have. The draft is a hopeless effort at this time, but Wikipedia has millions of other articles you could improve. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:49:04, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by GssBoot



GssBoot 11:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

15:18:22, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Invader2580

Hi, I wanted to know why the Article 'Radhakrishna Pillai' would soon be under speedy deletation. The article is about the Best selling Author Dr Radhakrishnan Pillai in India. A brief information is been provided with relevant citation and web links. Kindly help !

Invader2580 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not used the articles for creation process, instead you have created it straight into main space, your article has zero reliable sources so has correctly been tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:33, 10 April 2020 review of draft by Mgrodzins


In the Bibliography section, I have listed Titles and dates of published novels. I have more detailed bibliographic information for each work. Should it be included, and if so, how? Mgrodzins (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mgrodzins, you have plenty of information for each source. In fact, for some, you have a bit too much. You don't need to include an image of the actual letter from commons. At this stage (i.e. to be accepted via AfC), your sources really just need enough information to uniquely identify them. The problem with the sources was the types of sources you are using. The majority of your sources should be from secondary sources. These secondary sources themselves should be reliable (i.e. have a fact checking process, so not any blog or manuscript), and independent of the subject (so none of their books). They should also mention the subject significantly (so not just trivial coverage), but that doesn't seem to be a problem for you so far. I should note that Wikipedia doesn't count as a reliable source as it's user generated content (no fact checking process), and so that circular referencing is avoided (A cites B and B cites A). Sam-2727 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm in the right place to thank you. I'll get to work on cleaning this up as best I can.Mgrodzins (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:24:00, 10 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jshipley528


Hello I would like to get your recommendation on what types of specific references I should enter to have this article approved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Spill_(book). Is the most important thing to have lots of ref links within the body that appear in the References section at the bottom of the article? Or is it more valuable to have more Templates cite web, cite news, cite book, cite journal references? I feel like there are enough references to this novel out there on the web; I just need to know what would count the most to getting it approved. The author, Les Standiford, has a wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Standiford, his own author page http://www.les-standiford.com/ . Should I look at the references used in Standiford's Wikipedia article to see if I can find more on this novel Spill in them? Any feedback would be appreciated. I really liked this book and would love to have the article published!

Jshipley528 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (copy of answer from my talk page) Firstly it is more important to have a few very good references that lots, and yes it is always good to have them in the body of the article rather than just listed at the bottom so information can be verified WP:V more easily. See Help:Referencing for beginners for the key guide, note that you can use the same source in many places see the same reference used more than once section. Although using the cite templates helps people locate the sources, especially for bare urls to preserve extra information for if the url changes, but it's not essential. The most important thing here is all new articles on Wikipedia have to show they are notable subjects (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Just because Les Standiford is notable does not mean every piece of work is also notable on it's own. The key criteria for a book is Wikipedia:Notability (books) in particular WP:BOOKCRIT. Currently your three sources are the book (not independent), the second appears to just be the book blurb (not independent), the last is IMDB (not a reliable source) and is about the film adaptation. So what you need to find is the independent sources, normally at least 3, for instance reviews and any awards won. KylieTastic (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:00, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd


Marcywinograd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, 

 I just submitted a draft for review and publication of Puppets Against AIDS. I included in the draft several photos, after having described the copyright owner as Gary Friedman of Gary Friedman Productions. Gary Friedman has granted me and Wikimedia a FREE LICENSE to use these photos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Puppets_Against_AIDS) I just wrote Gary an email asking him to forward his FREE LICENSE GRANT permission to permissions-common@wikimedia.org  I hope this will be sufficient, as the photos are fantastic and add so much to the entry.

  Also, I'm finding that even photos I have taken, to which I own the copyright, are being nominated for deletion. This is

upsetting. I write in the description that I took the photo, yet it is still being nominated for deletion. What is the problem? The same is true for video of news events that I have taken. ??? Thanks for any guidance or feedback you can offer. MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:51, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd


Marcywinograd (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I appeal the rejection of my draft "Puppets Against AIDS" entry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Puppets_Against_AIDS 

Below is my feedback to the editor who rejected my entry.

I'm Marcy Winograd. Thank you for reviewing my draft "Puppets Against AIDS" and for responding promptly. I would appreciate it if you would further clarify, with quotes from specific sentences that you consider inappropriate, why you have rejected the article and explain explicitly (with a link) to how I can appeal your rejection as I wrote in the required neutral tone, included criticism of the project under "Evaluation", included multiple source citations (and not just to the creators' web site but also to NCBI abstracts, the World Encyclopedia of Puppetry, New Scientist and the Kenya Institute of Puppet Theater), external links to other Wikipedia articles that related to the topic. You mentioned in the rejection that the article reads more like an advertisement. To be clear, I posted evaluations of the program that included criticism, e.g, "Effectiveness and Evaluation" "Evaluators concluded, however, that Puppets Against AIDS could be even more effective if it were "incorporated into existing community-based education programmes on HIV infection." (citation) also "Although the researchers noted a need for sciprt changes to both improve the portrayal of women and to better address modern misconceptions about HIV/AIDS ... (citation) To further clarify, I wrote this article entry after reading on Wikipedia a list of requested articles. I had never heard of Puppets Against AIDS, nor had any relationship with the creator. I only contacted him recently to see if he had any photos to which he would grant a right to publish in the public domain on Wikimedia and Wikipedia. I believe this rejection is unfair and unwarranted and I would like to appeal it. Please send me a link to where I appeal and/or reconsider the rejection while providing very specific feedback on which sentences are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. I spent many days/hours researching this program and am, frankly, shocked that the entry was rejected.Marcywinograd (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:44, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Invader2580


Invader2580 (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invader2580, subjects of articles must meet certain notability guidelines to be included in Wikipedia. Currently, your article has one source that is not independent of the subject (one of the criterion). Unfortunately, a reviewer has determined that these sources that would indicate notability likely don't exist, so no further action can be taken on your submission. Sam-2727 (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:07:14, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Captionrex


Captionrex (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:25:40, 10 April 2020 review of submission by Alexander marshall 07


Hello, I have created a page for a musician named Eleazar Galope in the Philippines. His biography might not be enough to support the credibility of his Wikipedia page but I know him too much and he requested me to create a Wikipedia page for him. It's so saddening that some staff rejected my submission, but however, I'll add more sources and biography for his page to be more verifiable if it gets accepted. Thank you very much. Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander marshall 07 As an editor who has been around for 9 years you have to know that A) a single link to a Soundcloud account is nowhere near enough to pass both the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for musicians; and B) that you should not be writing about people you have a personal connection to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

03:20:59, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Joseph Carrollane


Hi David. I'm unsure why you declined this Wikipedia page. This page is perfectly within the guidelines of what was required. Also, pages like this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloob ) are much less informative and informal, so why are pages like that allowed on when my submission clearly has encyclopaedic information on it?

Joseph Carrollane (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging David.moreno72, as the questioned is addressed to them. The current problem with your article is that it's purpose is promotion. I agree that the article you reference is perhaps less informative. Not all pages on Wikipedia are good examples of pages. Generally it's frowned upon to create "Operation" sections that explain in detail how to use a certain program. Wikipedia isn't a user manual. You also use promotional words that express opinions as if they were fact like "boasted" and "advanced" (these are just examples). Also, sources must be independent, reliable, and mention of the subject of the article significantly (non-trivially). Currently, your sources fail the "independence" check. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:46:07, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Serotonine69


This personality did achieve success and recognition in his field of work: https://thehearup.com/francesco-carrozzo-has-been-working-as-a-sound-engineer/6777/ https://www.theodysseyonline.com/from-italy-to-los-angeles-francesco-carrozzo-takes-over-the-music-industry-worldwide


working with American and Italian artists such as A$AP Ferg, The Game, Negramaro. Why it should not be approved?

Serotonine69 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serotonine69 Your draft offers no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person to support the content of the article- it has no sources at all, actually. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:18, 11 April 2020 review of draft by DamienPo


Hi, should I understand that this article should be attached to CAST (company), is this correct?

DamienPo (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:30, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Kew1122


I need help, and I don't know what I can do. Kew1122 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:57, 11 April 2020 review of submission by 1.186.107.130

It's present on amazon prime https://www.amazon.co.uk/Brazen-Epiphany-Abhishek-Chaudhary/dp/B086VSN8TB

How more notable should it be? 1.186.107.130 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:07, 11 April 2020 review of draft by Marco Papavero


Marco Papavero (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:51, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Tsgroove

Help Tsgroove (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:52:04, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Shikhasethia


Hi, I had two questions that I needed support with, as this is my first article on Wikipedia.

Is there a way to have the link to the article on Gudmundur Eiriksson not be "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guðmundur_Eir%C3%ADksson" but "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudmundur_Eiriksson" to make it easier to search?

It still does not appear as a result when I search for Gudmundur Eiriksson on Google - is that something that will happen only as the page gets more hits?

Thank you.--Shikhasethia (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Shikhasethia (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shikhasethia, you can create a redirect, so the more common search term will redirect to the article. This has already been done for this case. For instance, try navigating to the page Gudmundur Eiriksson using the search bar in Wikipedia. I should note that the primary purpose of Wikipedia isn't to make pages visible on Google, it is to write a well written and comprehensive encyclopedia. In this case, the article isn't showing on Google because it was just created. Until articles are "reviewed" by new page patrollers, the article won't show up on Google (unless it hasn't been reviewed in 90 days). It will show up once a reviewer has made sure the article complies with the more essential Wikipedia policies. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sam-2727 Thank you - this is very clear and helpful.

18:44:13, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Geoffkors

This article is about "Hayden McNulty", a famous online personality and musician. Though he does not have any Billboard hits, he has over 600k subscribers and a dozen or so multi-million-view videos. I feel he warrants a small Wikipedia entry about him, as many of his contemporaries or relatively obscure artists also have small Wikipedia entries. Geoffkors (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffkors Please note that it is not usually a good argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. Feel free to point out some of these other similar articles for examination if you wish(though I'm guessing you don't wish to, which is okay). We can only address the problems that we know about. Other similar articles existing does not mean that yours can too. See other stuff exists.
In order to merit a Wikipedia article, a musician must meet at least one of the criteria written at WP:BAND, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Number of YouTube subscribers is not a notability criteria, as this is easily gamed(and 600,000 is relatively low). There are "YouTubers" with millions of subscribers who do not merit articles because no independent sources write about them. The sources you offer do not rise to the level of significant coverage by independent sources, sources that have chosen on their own to significantly cover the subject. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:42, 11 April 2020 review of submission by Gargsociology


Gargsociology (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gargsociology, your subject of your article has been determined by a reviewer to likely not be notable. That is, there probably aren't multiple independent reliable sources that mention significantly the subject of your article. If you can provide sources that do meet these requirements, then your article could be reconsidered for review. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

09:52:18, 12 April 2020 review of submission by 62.238.220.59


hi! I have drafted a site on Barakat-Perenthaler syndrome Draft_talk:Barakat-Perenthaler_syndrome. A reviewer rejected this, leaving a comment it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. This I do not understand, as the page is referring too well known medical journals (Acta Neuropathologica, Nature Communications, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) amongst others). So what do you think is wrong?

62.238.220.59 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked the reviewer directly what their specific concerns were? 331dot (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did not hear back from him/her yet 62.238.220.59 (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS. Just regular journal articles (studies) aren't considered reliable sources for the purpose of medical content. You should rely on review articles instead. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:22, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Zangosc


Zangosc (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zangosc You haven't asked a question, but your draft is completely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:34:55, 12 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Mr Tejal



Mr Tejal (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tejal, "Republic World" can be an unreliable source at times. I would recommend you add a couple more independent, reliable sources to confirm the notability of this subject. Also phrases like "a funny dubbed video" and "Even today" are editorializing the article. That is, they are stating opinion as if it were fact. Hope this helps. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Tejal (ec) You don't ask a question, but "YouTubers" rarely merit articles according to the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter how many followers they have or how many views their videos get. They need to have significant coverage in multiple sources. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:22, 12 April 2020 review of submission by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:BC52:C7D0:89DB:3D3B


2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:BC52:C7D0:89DB:3D3B (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources are traditionally unreliable sources (i.e. instagram and youtube). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:42, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455


Prasad3455 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? There are zero reliable sources in your draft so it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Can Help Me

Hey Anyone Can Help Me To Create a Wikipedia page and success approvel — Preceding unsigned comment added by James3354 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James3354 It is very hard to successfully create a new Wikipedia article, as you have found out with your draft Draft:JPixelite Studios. Note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Your draft has been rejected, meaning that there is little chance that the draft could be made acceptable. You seem to have a common misconception about Wikipedia. It is not a place to merely tell about something. It is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a subject that meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about itself. In the case of a business, independent sources must have chosen to give significant coverage of the business(not just press releases, staff interviews, or routine announcements) showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. No one doubts that this business exists, but Wikipedia must do more than tell that the business exists.
I assume from your draft that JPixelite Studios is your business or you work for it. If so, you will need to read and formally comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked and the draft has been deleted. The block and deletion logs contain more information, but this is obvious promotion. --Kinu t/c 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:16, 12 April 2020 review of draft by Wwwf22345


Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC) I would like guidance on what to add to show that I have sufficient sources for the entry. The listing includes a reference to a "New York Times" obituary and to a dedicated page at the site of "The Paris Review." Thank you.Wwwf22345 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:57, 12 April 2020 review of draft by Whisperjanes


I have a couple of questions, because the reviewer's comments about notability have gotten me confused about my understanding of Wikipedia notability (since in my opinion, this article would survive an AfD nomination with the sources given).

I've never seen a Wiki guideline/policy that mentions that local or specific subject sources are less reliable or usable. Is this a common practice on Wikipedia that I just haven't run into yet, or am I misunderstanding something else? Also, does a draft need online/checkable sources to be accepted at AfC as notable? I'm a bit confused why the reviewer said they looked online for notability, because I thought AfC's weren't supposed to be rejected based off of sources being offline or behind a paywall (but maybe I'm misunderstanding something else about the review process). - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whisperjanes. For companies, organizations, and their products or services, at least one regional, provincial, national, or international source is necessary to demonstrate notability, according to WP:AUD. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. "Limited interest and circulation" has commonly been interpreted as trade journals and local newspapers. It is not customarily used to dismiss publications in ethnic and other non-trivial communities that have historically been underserved by the mainstream media (e.g. publications such as Black, Mennonite, or LGBT newspapers).
Offline sources are perfectly acceptable for demonstrating notability, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Sources being offline or behind a paywall would be an illegitimate reason for declining a draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you! I haven't participated in many AfDs about companies/organizations, so I apparently have more to learn :) For books, is the publisher what makes them regional/national vs local? Or is locality determined on a more case-by-case basis when the source is not a newspaper/trade journal? (For example, books that are available in nation-wide stores don't seem instinctively "local" to me. And I'm unsure if online store availability (e.g. Amazon) influences locality at all, either) - Whisperjanes (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whisperjanes: "Local" rarely arises in connection with books. If the Ithica Chamber of Commerce published a book about a large employer in the town, it probably wouldn't convince reviewers of notability. But if Cornell University Press (also in Ithica) published the same book, it would probably carry great weight. The reputation of the publisher and the independence and qualifications of the author tend to be the most important factors in evaluating books about companies and organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:01:44, 12 April 2020 review of submission by Oleg obsase

what is missing? I saw many Georgian's pages, and this is absolutlty same.

Oleg obsase (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg obsase: Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence or not-existence of something can't be used to argue about the existence of something else. As far as I see, this Draft currently has zero relieable Sources. (No, Facebook/Twitter/Instagramm or anything written by the subject isn't considered relieable). If you find an article that you think is the same, please feel free to point it out here, and we can see that we either explain the difference or draftify/delete it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

10:40:20, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Rachelanne Schiller

Thank you for your time. However, there is no COI in this case, I merely have the best information on this subject possible, so I was given the task to write it. My involvement does not change its accuracy, and there is no bias or opinion utilised, merely information access that I have more of than any other person. There is nothing against the rules about being involved with the company and writing the bio - and I have honestly disclosed that information. I respectfully ask that the article be reviewed for its content, and if there are any parts that stand out as requiring clarification, adjustment of verbiage or removal, I am happy to do so. Pixicorn 10:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rachelanne Schiller - you do have a COI, and have denoted so on User:Rachelanne Schiller. That in itself shouldn't have stopped a draft, maybe 1292simon can give some more details on the decline. Drafts and AFC are the correct location for COI/PAID articles. In it's current state, it's not really encylopedic, and a little promotional, but it wouldn't take much work to fix it. I'd kill the "Mud Run Guide Best Of OCR Awards" and reformat the history section into prose. The biggest issue would be seeking to see if the subject meets WP:GNG, as a lot of the references seem self-published or WP:PRIMARY. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so SO much for your valuable time Lee Vilenski! I was unsure how there could be a COI, as I disclosed that I do indeed work for the company as requested before writing it, and while it is discouraged,it is not prohibited. As I have the most knowledge about the subject, it made sense for me to provide the information. As you mentioned, even if the COI stands, this feels like a very unreasonable reason to stop the draft. With massive respect to your input - Can you help me understand why the awards the event has won (factual and backed up with proof) should not be shown? Would an actor not be able to list their academy awards? A football team list the superbowls they have won? While it certainly is a positive thing, it is also informational and unbiased. Plus, you can find a similar section in one of your own articles here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimo_Tiger

The History section has no references to the event's appeal, pedigree or popularity, but only to the sequence of events within it's history and notable moments in the sport that occurred there. As OCR has hundreds of thousands of participants, those events are relevant to the sport's growth. Other races, such as Spartan Race and Tough Mudder can claim the same, quite fairly, and do. I am unsure how to reformat this section to show any more clinically. As you have a sports page background, it would be incredible if you could offer anything to this!

Lastly, as for the references, there are quite a few that are not directly from us, but the ones that come from our website, are things that offer specific information only offered within that context, but should not be considered as questionable or controversial, I merely wanted to back them up further.

Please do not think this is me being argumentative, merely hoping to support the choices made in a way that offers clarity. I worked on this for a very long time to make it fit the guidelines as I understood them! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelanne Schiller (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelanne Schiller, Rachelanne, if you work for the company you need to properly disclose that. I'm leaving a message to that effect on your talk page here in a minute. Further, the draft should not have been rejected just because you have a COI, I am reversing that, but it will be declined due to improper formatting and sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:27, 13 April 2020 review of submission by OSUBuckeye1963


OSUBuckeye1963 (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My entry for C.C. Thompson was rejected. The reason I made the submission is because there was a reference to his name under the RKO movie, "Hat, Coat and Glove." He is listed as the assistant director. There is a hyperlink with his name and when one clicks on it there is no further reference but there was a suggestion to anyone with information to make a Wikipedia submission. I was only following the suggestion. If not accepted perhaps the hyperlink for C.C. Thompson should be turned off. C.C. Thompson is also referenced in several other articles, mostly dealing with RKO movies including those of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Thompson's name is listed on several of these pages. If more information needs to be included I could do so. I am his nephew residing in Dayton, Ohio. Sincerely, Carl Wick.

Hi OSUBuckeye1963. Thank you for your posting. Red links are often added to articles without deep consideration of whether there is, in fact, enough information published in independent, reliable, secondary sources to sustain an encyclopedia article on the linked topic. So red links should be understood as maybe Wikipedia should have an article on the topic. On close examination, there are only passing mentions of C.C. Thompson in the historical record of film, not enough to establish biographical notability, so I have removed the red link from Hat, Coat, and Glove. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, such as FamilySearch or other genealogy websites, to record your knowledge of your uncle. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:42, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Prasad3455


Prasad3455 (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are reliable the topic is not notable and has therefore been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:42, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Zincage1


Zincage1 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)This article is a Ghanaian stub but will be expanded as time goes on.[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:27, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Donmirdas


I removed the links from the article that are considered advertising. Does the article now meet the criteria?

Donmirdas (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donmirdas, Your article has been rejected and nominated for speedy deletion, which means it will not be considered further. In the future, I would recommend not attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise something. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020-21 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball season

Well My Article Was Declined because it was too soon but the 2020 March madness tournament Was Canceled due to the Coronavirus. But The 2020-21 NCAA Men's Basketball season article should be an article now. 68.102.42.216 (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Also, almost none of the article is sourced and is full of empty sections. We also don't know when the start will be for sure, nor do we know which tourneys may be cancelled due to surrounding uncertainity of COVID-19. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:50:02, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Cbhare


I am creating an article page about Jason A Williams, he is the founder of 2nd largest urgent care company in the US, investor and technologist in crypto currency and waste to energy. We work together in PRTI (on of his companies) but otherwise i have no financial link. I am also a friend of and on a board with Ivan Sutherland father of computer graphics so i tried to take the format of Ivans page to use for Jasons as i've never written a wiki page before.

I have tried to give citations from public records, press, company info, colleges etc. But my article keeps being rejected.

Can you help me either delete or improve my submission?

many thanks chris

Cbhare (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cbhare, The whole article is nothing but a vanity promotional piece about the subject and does not have a place on wikipedia and thus was rejected. It has already been nominated for speedy deletion for being unambigiously promotional and will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cbhare, hi - the reviewers are telling you that you seem to be sourcing information from press releases and the like. We aim to reference information from reliable, independent, secondary sources; the existence or otherwise of such sources is used to determine whether a subject is notable. Please take a look at WP:FIRST, which will help you with things like tone, standard methods of citation, etc. You should also recognise that, since you know and work with these people, you do have a conflict of interest - you need to be aware of, and adhere to, the guidelines at COI. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:02, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Flaviomax63

Contribution was rejected for not having "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". This military operation has just been launched and there is not a lot of coverage around (mostly reprints of the EU press release). I have added the 2 most significant sources available at moment, coming from the Council of the EU and the United Nations. Should I delete the draft because no other "significant coverage" is available and therefore the subject doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article? Thank you. Flaviomax63 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flaviomax63, If there is no significant coverage than it is very likely the subject isn't yet notable WP:TOOSOON. Deleting it is not required, but if you want us to, please let us know. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:41, 13 April 2020 review of draft by Bloof7464


Hi there! I am a student trying to publish a page on female director, Pippa Bianco, for a school assignment. There are no current articles on Pippa Bianco so I am trying to submit a new draft, however I keep getting the message that my article is not published for review... I was wondering why this might be the case. The information was gathered and written prior in a Google Doc and was since pasted into the wiki article, could that be a possibility as to why it is not published for review? Thank you so much for your time! Bloof7464 (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloof7464: I've submitted the draft on your behalf. In future, if you want to submit pages for review, simply add {{subst:submit}} somewhere on the draft and hit save. (If you copy it from here please copy it as it appears when viewing the page, as I added coding to prevent it from working on this page). Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:14, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi , i couldnt find many sources (i provided two earlier but rejected) of my page.Please review as this is a about a housing society which actually exists . Iayaz (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz Please see WP:42. If there are no sources, thats the end of line for now. Please see WP:AMOUNT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:58:10, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Zebuready


I have created my 1st simple article with verified official source but it declined, i am working improving but i do not understand what is the exact mistake i have done so the article is declined.

Article link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zebuready/sandbox

Zebuready (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zebuready: So far, that page was never submitted and is not in article space, but on your user sandbox. I could in theory add code that allows you to submit it, but I'm not comfortable doing that right now as it would get declined. Wikipedia requires multiple independent relieable sources. Source 1 is a Wiki and not considered relieable and number 2 appears to be a directory listing and not relieable either. If you talk about Draft:A2Hosting that page was deleted under WP:G7. If you want it back, ask at WP:REFUND or post here and some admin will probbably restore it as well. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This editor appears to be trying to game the system because they blanked their sandbox after it was Rejected and have re-created a draft on A2Hosting. I don't believe them above when they say that they do not understand what the exact mistake was. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Thanks for the response. So you mean wikipedia dont consider a valid reference source from another wiki? and the other source from Crunchbase, i have seen lot of wikipedia article using crunchbase as verified source. Zebuready (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Sorry about this but i want to clearify i am not trying to game the system. I am new here and i really dont know how wikipedia works and what are the features there, i have deleted and resubmitted with my sandbox page because the option to submit article for review was missing, So i did this after making some valid changes to the articles. Anyway thanks for the guide, i will take care from future Zebuready (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zebuready - The option to resubmit the article for review was no longer there because the draft had been rejected. If a draft is rejected, you should either accept the rejection and do something else or discuss the rejection, rather than blanking the rejection. You blanked and resubmitted the draft in two different ways. I can't speak for anyone else, but if you accept that you have been told to leave it alone, I will leave you alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: you explained me and i understand now, i dont know this before because i am new wikipedian that the reason when i see there is no options so i just plan to make some good edits and submitted again from step one. Zebuready (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:35, 13 April 2020 review of submission by Rkprince21


Rkprince21 (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) please review my article and help me to get approval for writing good in the article as per rules.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkprince21 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wim_Hoste[reply]

Did you have a question about why it was declined, or can you specify what you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:42:13, 13 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Fadedsnow


Hi there!

I am getting acquainted with Wikipedia and after making a few edits on existing articles, I thought it'd be interesting to contribute to Wikipedia by making a new article. However, after submitting it twice, the second time was after I made edits from the first round of suggestions, I am unsure what I'm doing wrong. I found a lot of good third-party articles about a local company in my city, so I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. What are specific suggestions that I can implement for this article so that it's Wikipedia quality? Thank you for your help!

Fadedsnow (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fadedsnow The sources that you have offered do not have the significant coverage of the subject required for the company to merit a Wikipedia article. A company merits an article if it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you have offered are routine announcements of business transactions or press release-type articles, which do not establish notability. SEC or any government filing would be considered a primary source and also not establish notability. Independent sources must have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to this company, not just telling that it made a transaction or winning an award of some kind- but in depth coverage of the company. The article should summarize what that coverage is. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

02:58:19, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd

Re: DRAFT AGI ORSI

Marcywinograd (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this, is Marcy. I just received the message that my article on Agi Orsi, a female documentary filmmaker, was rejected because it relied on too many sources from the subject of the article and was more like an advertisement. I am really perplexed because I had dozens of citations that were from a variety of sources, Variety, LA Times, NY Times, International Documentary Association, various small market newspapers, and did not use any words like "popular" or "widely acclaimed." It is written in a neutral tone--does not praise the subject of the piece, a female documentary filmmaker. I am particularly surprised because the reason I wrote this pice was because there was a request on the requested articles page for an entry on Agi Orsi. I am a volunteer writer who spent many hours researching the filmmaker's work. I do not praise her, merely share the themes of her work. I've noticed Wikipedia has glowing pages about the male directors and writers with whom Orsi has collaborated, so why is this entry being rejected? I've also noticed Wikipedia does not have many female documentary producers on its site; in fact there is a glaring absence, with this category completely male-dominated, so I'm doubly confused as to why you are rejecting an article, written in a neutral tone, on a female documentary producer, with many citations from reputable sources. What is it that I can do, specifically, to make this entry acceptable? Do you want me to delete some of the film festival prizes that her films won? Does that make sense? I don't think so Thank you for any guidance or reconsideration you can offer after reviewing the voluminous and varied nature of the sources I cited, the double-standard being applied to a female documentarian, when there is a plethora of male-dominated entries about men in the documentary film world and the neutral toneMarcywinograd (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC).Marcywinograd (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcywinograd, The decline was not based on notability or the quality of sources, but in fact made due to the advert tone of the article itself. Wikipedia article are written in a formal, neutral tone devoid of puffery terms or celebrations of the subject. There's a few other issues that also need to be addressed: 1) The formatting of the article itself is incorrect and a bit sloppy, I would advise checking out WP:MOS or visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for help. 2) The excessive use of bolding needs to be tidied up. 3) IMDB is not considered a reliable source WP:RS and should be used only under the rarest of circumstances (none of which I'm seeing here).
The lack of coverage of women across all industries is a frustrating aspect that many editors are working to correct. I would recommend Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red if that is something that interests you. However, please understand this lack of inclusion is not due to a bias, but rests solely on the shoulders of those that decide to write articles. Additionally, our standards for approval will not be lessened, no matter how little or how much an area of the population is or isn't covered. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:37:37, 14 April 2020 review of draft by Shywolfghost


Hello, I'm writing a wikipedia article about a band, that I believe passes the notability threshold. I'm confused as to how the evidence I've provided doesn't fill that quota as Individual notability and Songs in a tv show are both reasons to pass that threshold. Does there have to be a specific formatting of evidence? thank you Shywolfghost (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shywolfghost, No, having a song in a tv show does not make a band notable. Having a song that is a THEME of a tv show MAY denote notability. There's also issues that were already pointed out such as the use of social media links as references. You also claim that one of their songs "debuted at number one on Billboard's Alternative Songs Airplay Chart", yet this claim is not supported by the provided source. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:51, 14 April 2020 review of draft by 72.69.243.12


72.69.243.12 (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've come by to put in the 1998 Winter Olympics Closing Ceremony. Can you help me? I just watch it from Olympic Channel.

11:15:04, 14 April 2020 review of submission by RocknRollArchivist

Fats Domino was one of the greatest authors and performers of American popular music, popular not only at home, but all over the world. In particular, in Europe, where his fan clubs and numerous websites dedicated to his legacy were created and exist. The material presented in this article is unique and exhaustively describes all the recordings made by him during his 60-year career. It will undoubtedly be in demand by numerous fans of the artist in the world and collectors of his recordings.

However, if this material is not of interest to the English Wikipedia, I will post it, for example, in the French, Russian, and other versions of Wikipedia. Readers of these articles will wonder why this article was rejected by the English Wikipedia.

RocknRollArchivist (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RocknRollArchivist, I'm assuming you didn't take the time to actually read why it was declined? Because nowhere was it mentioned that the subject isn't notable. You're welcome to post the material on any of the wikis, no one is stopping you. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:59, 14 April 2020 review of submission by EVS2015

Hi,

I've had two reviews and comments regarding the Wikipedia draft article on The Power of Nutrition. I made edits, trying to remove anything that read like an advertisement and changed the tone to more neutral. The second review also got declined because, additionally, it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I was wondering how I could go about ensuring the article complies to the Wikipedia guidelines entirely? I thought there was still a good variety of independent, reliable, published sources, not just ones produced by the charity, so as this has been deemed not to be the case, I was wondering if anyone could perhaps point me to specific sections that don't comply, and in your opinion appear to be the problem?

Thanks. EVS2015 (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:11:11, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Neel n popat


Neel n popat (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:02, 14 April 2020 review of draft by RMJ13


I have created a page and sent for approval, COSRT and in the infobox, it will not show the information of 'CEO' and 'Chair' of the organization - how can I submit that information into the info box in a way that'll work? Also, the title page is 'COSRT' - should it instead be the full name 'College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists' or is COSRT okay? If it isn't, how would I change the title page? Thank youRMJ13 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RMJ13 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:04, 14 April 2020 review of draft by Mgrodzins


How do I properly respond to the editors comments, for example,to thank them. Received comment from MurielMary. Mgrodzins (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mgrodzins (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC) I have received a warning about "a link or reference running through a local proxy". It says to look for Proxy or gate. Where do I look?Mgrodzins (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:54, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Managementoffice20


He is a quite notable and underresearched person. There are lots of information available on the open web about him. He will play in Eurocup or Euroleague next season. People in the same situation with him have Wikipedia pages because they all had crucial NCAA careers like Alihan Demir. Alihan Demir is all time second leading scorer from Turkey in NCAA. Here are the links of what he accomplished:

https://gophersports.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/alihan-demir/16681

https://drexeldragons.com/sports/mens-basketball/roster/alihan-demir/6616

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/_/id/4279197/alihan-demir

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/alihan-demir-1.html


Managementoffice20 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managementoffice20 As noted by the reviewer, this player does not yet meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable basketball player. Once he appears in a professional game, he will. Please read other stuff exists; if you are aware of other similar articles that are equally inappropriate, please point them out, as we can only address what we know about. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years.
If you are his manager or agent, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to declare that you are a paid editor. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:38, 14 April 2020 review of submission by KylePippen1


KylePippen1 (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be created because it is based on a public person who has done stints on notable reality tv shows, as the Kardashians are posted I also believe that she should be. If you could please help me make this article notable enough to be posted to Wikipedia I would be very greatful.

KylePippen1, Your article has been rejected to the subject not having a chance of being notable and because the page violates many of our rules, in particular, it is a full on promotional vanity page. Surely you aren't actually suggesting that subject has the same notability as the Karashians... Sulfurboy (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:20, 14 April 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi, i added refrence of my article (Pls refer to page 85 of https://cooperatives.punjab.gov.pk/system/files/Final%20for%20Printing.pdf#overlay-context=books , this is from website of punjab govrnment & confims existance of wapda town sheikhupura

looking forward that my article will be allowed to be published this time as i have added an authentic reference Iayaz (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iayaz, Your article was already rejected which means there is no current chance of demonstrating notability. As such, your draft will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Robochrome Gaming Society

Hello, I am writing to you as an associate for the collective of Robo. I would like you to reconsider your warning, since Robo stand for a cause that is worth looking into. Please find it in your heart to let Robo have a free individual voice on Wikipedia. Thank you for your efforts!

That's not how Wikipedia works. If you are going to edit with a WP:COI then please respect our rules. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:29, 14 April 2020 review of draft by AhmedKadiye


I corrected all the necessary information and also corrected the sources. So please review it and submit it Thank you

AhmedKadiye (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:00, 14 April 2020 review of submission by AwesomeAKO

Why did I get declined? Avery O (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AwesomeAKO, This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia and This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This same info is found in the decline message itself along with links to applicable policy. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

04:55:57, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya


the article which I submitted for publishing, reviewed are Nepali proverbs ......... actually its used in daily lives and most of them do not have an exact English translation. as nowadays people are not using these either in writing nor in spoken.. these will disappear with time... thus I am doing this to preserve it for future generations. please do suggest how can I do it. with regards.... sudan Bhattarai.....

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya, What article? What you linked to is just an article that says "nepali proverbs" in nepalese Sulfurboy (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:59, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Joseph Carrollane


Hi there, I've shortened the Wikipedia entry for the Hello Dating app. Please take another look to see if it's more acceptable.

Joseph Carrollane (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Carrollane, The article was rejected which means a fellow reviewer has determined that there is no hope to demonstrate notability for the topic at this time. As such, the article will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:59:30, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Vipinahir


Vipinahir (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I already provided the reliable sources as well valid /suitable/ independent sources so please check deeply all the link

You were requested multiple times to properly format your references and you ignored this, just leaving a menagrie of unreliable or primary sources of bare urls at the bottom of the page. You repeatedly after warnings resubmitted without making good faith efforts to improve the article. Per the rejection message: Article has an overly promotional tone that is basically a press release for the college. User has repeatedly resubmitted without good faith efforts to improve the article and clearly has not taken the time or has to the care to review our policies. Since this is clogging up our backlog and since this page is WP:TNT the draft is rejected.
The article has been rejected and as such, will not be considered further. Please take the time and care to read our applicable polices for creating pages. This will help you immensely in creating pages or making edits in the future. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:40, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Badgerbrook86



I'm looking to add and edit several cabaret and comedy prominent figures into Wiki over the next few months. I've started with Bernie Dieter who is currently one of the biggest touring cabaret artists but yet to have an article on here.

It would be great to have someone check over the revised article with the changes I've made.


Badgerbrook86 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Badgerbrook86: hi there. Your changes certainly are an improvement, though it still reads as somewhat promotional to me. One suggestion is that we don't generally do reviews like that (just listing particularly positive lines from the various reviews) - I'd suggest two facets on it. Format wise, take a look at some other articles in the same general field that are reasonably long. See how they handle their critical reception/reviews sections. If reviews are generally positive but have some common negative or concern, give that. If there are some more mixed, or even negative, reviews that are in reliable sources, include them.
The "Little death club" section has three lines on the plot, and then 9 about how successful it's been. Coupled with the fairly long positive review section, it's rather disproportinately pro-Bernie then actually summarising the subject matter.
This isn't a full review, just a few things that jumped out at me Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:35, 15 April 2020 review of submission by ImPritamShaw


ImPritamShaw (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:27:15, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Bartelomeus-123


Dear Sir/Madam, it is the first time that I am creating a Wikipedia article and I would like to ask your help. Could you elaborate on the reasons for rejecting the article?

1) Topic not sufficiently notable: are you referring to a) no sufficient coverage in the articles referred to or b) not enough reference articles? 2) Submission contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia: could you further clarify? Other streaming protocols such as HLS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Live_Streaming), MPEG-DASH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP) and WebRTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRTC) also have a Wikipedia page

Looking forward to your feedback. Once obtained, I'll take it into account to further update the Wikipedia article.

Thanks Bartelomeus-123

Bartelomeus-123 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:40, 15 April 2020 review of submission by EmmaOldenkamp


Hello, I have gone in and re-edited the document to omit any advertorial language, leaving only factual information. Can you please re-review this and let me know if the article is still unacceptable, and if so, why? We have been trying to have our brand listed on Wikipedia for some time now and would love to rectify this soon! I appreciate it. EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC) EmmaOldenkamp (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "list brands" on Wikipedia, we have articles about notable subjects. Undeclared paid editing is a breach of the terms of use that you have to agree to abide by when you edit here, and we take editing in areas where you have a personal or professional interest very seriously. If you edit the page again now that you have been notified of these issues, you may be blocked. The draft was correctly rejected it is blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:06, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Thecorporateidentity


Hello,

I am just wondering how I could get my draft Julian Michael Carver to become a live article. How many credible sources would I need? I have found other authors on wiki with much less sources, sometimes with just sources to just their own website. Any advice?

Thecorporateidentity (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other stuff exists; other inappropriate articles existing does not mean yours can, too. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. Feel free to point out these other articles; we can only address what we know about.
Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:27, 15 April 2020 review of draft by 2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5


Hi there. I wanted to know whether Companies House can be used as a source of information about professional positions held and date of birth?

I also wanted to query this bit of feedback from the original submission of this draft article: "a lot of the verbiage is copied from other biographies or original research". This is not true, as I have written this article myself, but I don't know how to prove it!

There was also the following comment on the first draft: 'The early life and education section is completely unsourced and seems to be copy-pasted or closely paraphrased from somewhere'. The second part of this is not correct - again, I wrote this text from scratch. However, I don't know how to source date and place of birth, details of early life etc., as they are simply not published anywhere. Part of the problem is that the subject of this article is a psychoanalyst, still living, and analysts are generally very protective of their privacy and personal details, due to the work they do with patients. This means I can't provide published sources for these more private details, even though they are absolutely factual. Could you help me with this problem?

I also don't understand this comment: 'a lot of the writing portrays Britton in a positive light with unsourced random supporting quotes'. I am revising the text and trying to take out anything that seems too positive and not neutral enough, but I don't see what 'unsourced random supporting quotes' refers to in the original draft. I have provided references for every quote I have used.

2A00:23C8:6C03:4B01:E0F6:95C4:27E:3FF5 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig Copyvio shoes that 77.9% of text is copied from https://psychoanalysis.org.uk/our-authors-and-theorists/ron-britton Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:29, 15 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Simon Aronsson


Hi there,

I'm trying to get the k6 article through for creation, but keep getting it rejected. The article has both scientific references and references from notable sources (like GitLab), yet it gets rejected?

Please advice.

Best regards, Simon

Simon Aronsson (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:47, 15 April 2020 review of submission by CRZ Clintzy

It is a good book and I want the world to see it and review it

CRZ Clintzy (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this is not a forum to distribute books. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:23, 15 April 2020 review of draft by Juliemb54


Could someone help me understand why an article I created was sent to draft, then declined by the same editor? I have 23 reliable sources cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fobazi_Ettarh

Juliemb54 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:56, 15 April 2020 review of draft by TealTortoise


I think that my subject meets the criteria for notability on the following grounds:

Nomination for a significant award: British MBE The subject has been featured in at least three national media outlets over a period of over 10 years (for a living subject)

I'd appreciate some assistence with how to improve the 'Neutral Point of View' requirement in the article. Please join me on the talk page.

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TealTortoise (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading around some more I can see that there are issues with adverts - I've got no personal connection with the subject of the article - I stumbled upon her and thought it was really cool to see a high-profile plumber. TealTortoise (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article to remove as much fluff as possible. I also agree she is notable enough for an article, would love to see the article expanded. I have no dog in the game here either, she just seems like an interesting person for an article and she does appear to be notable to me! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:32, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Royalty clothings


Royalty clothings (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising, Wikipedia is not for promoting your business. Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:52, 15 April 2020 review of submission by AviCicirean


AviCicirean (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:33:55, 15 April 2020 review of submission by Smithstella2001


Stella Smith (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


April 16

01:33:12, 16 April 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421


What is the exact threshold for a content creator to be deemed eligible for a page. It seems to be rather up to individual mods to approve a page without any precise criteria. Lots of "less know" creators have pages. Thanks for helping clear this up!


2601:8C:702:1F20:58C6:C431:D5BD:3421 (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:22:13, 16 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by ChristinaL.P.


I have made changes to my article according to reviewer comments. How to I resubmit?

ChristinaL.P. (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=951219102"