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
MisMurphy (talk | contribs)
15 edits
No edit summary
Line 539: Line 539:
[[Special:Contributions/91.184.79.127|91.184.79.127]] ([[User talk:91.184.79.127|talk]]) 14:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
[[Special:Contributions/91.184.79.127|91.184.79.127]] ([[User talk:91.184.79.127|talk]]) 14:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
:You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 14:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

== 15:16:30, 7 October 2020 review of submission by MisMurphy ==
{{Lafc|username=MisMurphy|ts=15:16:30, 7 October 2020|declined=Draft:Scott_Dadich}}

[[User:MisMurphy|MisMurphy]] ([[User talk:MisMurphy|talk]]) 15:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:16, 7 October 2020

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


October 1

03:23:56, 1 October 2020 review of submission by Venicestan

Overly Sarcastic Productions deserves its own page as it is increasing in subscribers and has become a very widely-viewed channel in history youtube. Venicestan (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said is completely irrelevant. No sources, no article, no exceptions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 03:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:28, 1 October 2020 review of draft by Spmenon33


Can you shorten the timeline to publish my draft? also, is there a paid page online which can be locked against editing by unwanted elements?

Spmenon33 (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We do not accept text taken wholesale, or closely paraphrased, from another website. (2) Protection is not for enforcing content. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 06:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:35:50, 1 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JaredsBios


Good Day Team, I would like to find out further info as to why my article is being rejected? If perhaps you could assist me with this info as to how i can possibility get it accepted? I am busy writing a article about Mark Alpha Abrahams with references and links but i keep getting a message back saying its not from a reliable source. Please can you explain what a reliable source would be?

How does one qualify to have an article in Wikipedia? Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated

Best Regards

JaredsBios (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. EVERY claim made in the draft MUST be cited to a credible secondary source that corroborates it. No exceptions. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 08:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:23, 1 October 2020 review of draft by Violeta Čapovska


Dear Wikipedia, I have created a new Wikipedia page about the Macedonian writer Ivan Čapovski. Wikipedia page in Macedonian already exists. My page is in a Draft form. Can I please ask for help from an experienced editor in the English wikipedia to review the Draft:Ivan Čapovski? Many thanks and kind regards, Violeta Čapovska (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violeta Čapovska (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violeta Čapovska, Accepted The English is fine. I have flagged certain improvements that we need and left a comment on the new article's talk page Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:12:48, 1 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Clarealev


Hi there! I'm looking for some help with an article I've been working on, Draft:Sano Genetics. I've been through lots of rounds of edits and asked for help from multiple Wikipedia users to improve it but I'm still having no luck with it. I'd really appreciate some help of what I can do next, where I'm going wrong, and any other tips you may have! Thank you so much. (Sorry my original message didn't show for some reason, thanks for the pointer!) Clarealev (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Clarealev (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarealev, Traditionally a help desk is a place where questions are asked and then answered. Perhaps we might start with your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:18:35, 1 October 2020 review of draft by Whintl


I made some changes in my submission on June 8, but it has not yet been reviewed. This seems like an unusually long time, do you know when it will be reviewed? Thanks.

Whintl (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whintl: You havent resubmitted the draft for review, so no one looked at it. The Resubmit button is in the first red box at the top .Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:37, 1 October 2020 review of draft by EldenSelections


I work for Elden Selections and we want to create a wikipedia page for our company. I took the content off of our website and cited it and it was rejected. I was wondering if wikipedia can just create us a page. If Elden Selections has to do it, can we use any of the content off of our website? Do I just have to source every sentence? EldenSelections (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EldenSelections, as I have told you on my talk page, We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make any draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Reading the primary sources element will help you, as will the selfpub element
Writing an article is the absolute hardest thing to attempt on Wikipedia. Writing a neutral article about your employer is even harder. Generally you will find that Wikipedia editors, almost all of whom are volunteers, will not do as a volunteer something you are being paid to do by your corporation.
I have no idea why any corporation would even want a Wikipedia article about it. It is not 'your page' (see WP:OWN) and you have no control of any description over it. It is a true two edged sword Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because Alexa ranking and preferential treatment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 00:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EldenSelections, And, as you have seen, editors using Wikipedia for promotion find they are blocked for infringing that very solid rule. That happened between my starting and posting my reply to you here.
Should you choose to create a new account you must follow WP:PAID in all respects. This is an area where second chances are very few, and are exceptions, not a right Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:48, 1 October 2020 review of submission by Niharika Sahoo Nayak


Niharika Sahoo Nayak (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Sahoo Nayak, Traditionally a help desk is a place where questions are asked and then answered. Perhaps we might start with your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:23:53, 1 October 2020 review of submission by Niharika Sahoo Nayak


Niharika Sahoo Nayak (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niharika Sahoo Nayak, once is enough to ask a question and to get answers. There is no need to duplicate a submission here. Fiddle Faddle 22:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

04:20:17, 2 October 2020 review of submission by Saroj k86


Saroj k86 (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saroj k86, Traditionally a help desk is a place where questions are asked and then answered. Perhaps we might start with your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saroj k86, I had not expected the question to be asked on my talk page, but I have given you advice there.
Asking on one editor's talk page relies on their being online to give you an answer. Asking it here receives the wisdom of those who patrol this page who feel they have something to add Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Sorry, Thank you for your advice.

04:35:52, 2 October 2020 review of submission by 2409:4073:312:DCF8:255C:D3C1:8204:38A3


2409:4073:312:DCF8:255C:D3C1:8204:38A3 (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:4073:312:DCF8:255C:D3C1:8204:38A3: This edit is the only edit from your IP. if you used an account to edit, please login before you ask your question. Othrwise, please indicate the draft you ask about, either as the URL or, if you manage to do it, a Wikilink. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:44:35, 2 October 2020 review of submission by JJMhonest 2020

It shouldn't be rejected subject is so popular

JJMhonest 2020 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JJMhonest 2020, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:53, 2 October 2020 review of draft by Liz Lambert


Good morning,

apparently my contribution cannot be published because there are not many references. However, there are no sources that I could indicate. The information in the article is first-hand, i.e. the person or institute has given it to me.

So what can I do to make sure that the article is published anyway?

I thank you in advance.

Best regards,

Liz

Liz Lambert (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Lambert, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 07:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Liz Lambert do please take a good look at the specific notability criteria for academics for further guidance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:58, 2 October 2020 review of submission by 223.189.184.250

I feel the draft is right. See once 223.189.184.250 (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked. I disagree. Fiddle Faddle 14:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Why it is written in english not in hindi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitendra Srivastava Kumar (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitendra Srivastava Kumar: Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We are writing in english here, because this is the english Wikipedia. If you are interested, a Wikipedia in hindi is available at hi.wikipedia.org and it has currently a total of 55 articles. Since I assume this is about Draft:Kumar Jitendra, I add Help:Your first article, a guideline for your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:34:49, 2 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Zjholder



Zjholder 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zjholder, Traditionally a help desk is a place where questions are asked and then answered. Perhaps we might start with your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:33, 2 October 2020 review of draft by Michfen


I have been battling with this problem for a while and have no idea how to fix it. When I view the Wiki page in Edit source, it looks perfect with all the references appearing under the heading References, where they should be. But when you Read it on the Wiki page, the references appear under External Links i.e. in the completely wrong place. Please help or advise how to fix this.Michfen (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michfen (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michfen, see how it is cured
However it is more usual to place citations directly at the fact they are intended to verify Fiddle Faddle 21:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

10:55:38, 3 October 2020 review of submission by OBIAGELI2020


OBIAGELI2020 (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC) The article name with Helen obiageli should not be deleted,contest this speedy deletion because am writing about myself and no one knows me better than i do and i want to contribute to wikipedia so why are you discouraging me[reply]

OBIAGELI2020 Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. This is not social media, but an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia has no interest in what people want to say about themselves. If you just want to tell the world about yourself and your career, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:32, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020


I have made all the changes as mentioned by the reviewers to improve the draft here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Massar_Solutions. The company belongs to the government of UAE and does that give it notability(Francisjk2020 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@Francisjk2020: no, belonging to a government is not a shortcut to get an article on Wikipedia. The meaning of "notability" in Wikipedia for companies is at WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:13, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Elwati Elve


Elwati Elve (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elwati Elve You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or advance their music career; see the autobiography policy for more information. Please use social media to spread the word about yourself. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:06, 3 October 2020 review of submission by 105.112.39.181


105.112.39.181 (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly, a Help desk is a place where you come when you have a specific question. May we start with your question please? Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:33, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Elwati Elve


Elwati Elve (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Help me to correct my wikimedia common which is broked[reply]

18:29:11, 3 October 2020 review of draft by Ceefrop


Article got denied when it clearly meets the requirements.

Here's wikipedia's Notability requirements for music:

- Criteria for musicians and ensembles 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

Suitable charts A chart is normally considered suitable for inclusion if it meets both of the following characteristics:

It is published by a recognized reliable source. This includes any IFPI affiliate, Billboard magazine, or any organization with the support of Nielsen SoundScan.

DFD Music has charted on BILLBOARD multiple times. The sources are linked in the article.

They have always worked with major labels and signed artists. Another notability requirement which is linked.



Ceefrop (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:12, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Elwati Elve


Elwati Elve (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elwati Elve, please stop spamming this request. It has no verification and "Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or advance their music career; see the autobiography policy for more information. Please use social media to spread the word about yourself" as stated by 331dot. Heart (talk) 04:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to create this page

18:32:01, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Elwati Elve


Elwati Elve (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Please help me to create this page[reply]

@Elwati Elve: this submission lacks any form of verification. Therefore, it currently also fails WP:NARTIST. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:58, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Right cite


Added more on release and reception, reviews of the game, coverage from news media, and more overall research. Could deserve another look. Thank you!

Right cite (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:08, 3 October 2020 review of submission by Sedimentary7

I recieved a message saying this artist does not meet the notability requirements. I have seen other start-class articles where artists have recieved the same amount of recognition. Since this is my first article, I would love to have pin-pointed feedback. Could I have more clarification on why this artist does not meet the requirements? Sedimentary7 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sedimentary7 Please note that each draft or article is judged on its own merits, and that the existence of other similar articles does not mean yours can exist too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us.
For this artist to merit an article, you must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. Most of the sources you provided merely confirm the existence of her work or points in her career. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

03:58:02, 4 October 2020 review of submission by Mustafa Divinatory

Hi,

Can you please advise are there any mistakes in the submitted draft? Also, please guide me on how may I alter this draft so that it may not look like an advertisement as pointed out by the reviewer.

Thanks Mustafa Divinatory (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Divinatory, at a brief glance, it looks like it look WP:PROMOTION. If you can provide facts backed up my sources that present a neutral point of view it will clear up that issue. I am also worried about WP:NOTABILITY as a quick search for it in the news does not yield anything other than job listings and the official website. My last concern is your username implies that you are involved in the company, if you could, could you disclose whether or not you are involved in the company? Heart (talk) 04:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:55:04, 4 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 2409:4070:897:5824:7237:1F32:6D94:A100



2409:4070:897:5824:7237:1F32:6D94:A100 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:04, 4 October 2020 review of submission by 139.5.253.223


139.5.253.223 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Sanjeevsharma1967, remember to log in before posting. You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:02, 4 October 2020 review of submission by Geoffstokes

I have had lots of feedback telling me why my page has been rejected but none of them reference my comments on my talk page. its a page about a small topic (a now defunct field hockey club) so will have limited external references but does this mean that Wikipedia is only for large topics or organisations? I have seen (and referenced in my talk page) other pages with fewer links.

I was connected with the club (who else would be bothered enough to write about it?) but don't understand why that makes the entry invalid.

I would really like to get my page published and would be grateful for any advice.

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


Geoffstokes (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffstokes, The real answer is solely to do with notability. If you can assert and verify notability then you are onto a winner.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Geoffstokes, Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:46, 4 October 2020 review of submission by Yairc22-Pro


Hello, I did not understand why it was removed I have been working on it for a long time and I want it to stay. Do you think this is advertising? And if so then what can I edit or remove that will be approved? thank you and have a nice day!

Yairc22-Pro (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 16:43:13, 4 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Holcman1


1-As the owner, I am giving right to Wikipedia 2-I have made substantial changes,so that the article contains much more material compared to the arXiv articles.

What do I need to tdo to access my draft?

David.


Holcman1 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered at User talk:Holcman1#Help me!. Holcman1, please dont ask the same question in multiple places. It wastes the time of everone attempting to respond to you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:15, 4 October 2020 review of submission by Suraj0791


Suraj0791 (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that like most of us, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms, so we cannot have an article about you, your draft had zero acceptable reliable independent sources and the content was in any case inappropriate, sorry to disappoint you. Try social media. Theroadislong (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suraj0791, there is nothing about this person to suggest that he passes WP:GNG, so it has been rejected. I am using the telepathy interface 1.09.3b to examine your intent in posting with no actual question asked Fiddle Faddle 21:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:04, 4 October 2020 review of submission by Astro1995


Hi, I would like to know why this page was considered not notable as I have added sources to prove that the subject is notable, I have seen multiple pages on wikipedia that very little references and are up and live on the site. please explain, if you still believe my page should be deleted, then go ahead, but I would like an explanation. Thank you

Astro1995 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


the page represents an actual notable artist, and I have included a few references to prove so. I, before proceeding with the creation of the article, have done some research and noticed that multiple people are on wikipedia with very little references and are still up on the site or have been approved. So please explain why this is any different. I can provide links of these other wikipedia articles. Thank You

Astro1995 (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astro1995 Please see other stuff exists. Other poor articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. This is why each article is judged on its own merits. Feel free to point out these other articles so they can be addressed, we can use the help.
Your draft was only sourced to sources related to the person; Wikipedia articles should summarize only what independent reliable sources completely unconnected with the subject have chosen on their own to say about it, with significant coverage, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your draft also had much promotional language("a passion for acting", which is impossible to independently verify) which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

07:30:43, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Baolovesmochi

Template:AAATrade

Hello, I have submitted several edits of the AAAtrade page and I am not sure which content I need to remove to ensure that the page is not considered promotional. If you could point out what needs to be removed I would greatly appreciate it. Kind Regards Baolovesmochi (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baolovesmochi (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baolovesmochi Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a subject. Your draft merely tells about the company, and is only sourced to things confirming the specific factual information in the article. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unaffiliated with the organization choose to say about it. "Significant coverage" does not include press releases, the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions, brief mentions, or other primary sources. In essence, you need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage. If no such sources exist, your company will not merit an article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field. Please see Your First Article for more information.
I see you declared as a paid editor- feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:51, 5 October 2020 review of draft by Phohammer


Hey, we at the Institute for Social ecology were wondering if we could get some tips or pointers as to how we could improve the article since it seems fairly devoid of "peacock terms" & was written by one of Bookchin's editors in a style similar to that used for other political entries. Any insights would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Phohammer (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phohammer Please note that only a single person should have access to and be operating your account. You will also need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. Most of what was written seems to be original research which is not permitted on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should only be summarizing what independent reliable sources state about the topic, and should not be drawing conclusions. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:07, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Greenock1998

the article I wrote about Ardmaleish boatbuilding company the last shipyard to the Scottish island of Bute was rejected for ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia ) by Salimfadhley who lives in London in England and is of Arab descent, has rejected my article on part of Scottish shipbuilding history I find this very offensive I wish for a ethically Scottish person to review my article some who should under stand the importance of shipbuilding in Scottish history , I was say this again I find this very offensive that my article was rejected for ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia ) by some I believe who does not understand Scottish history .

thank you your time.


when there are other article about other shipyards that have not been rejected

here are 25 article on other British shipyards that were not rejected for being ( not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_Marine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotts_Shipbuilding_and_Engineering_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkol_Marine_Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall,_Russell_%26_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dunston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_W_Miller_%26_Sons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McTay_Marine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_%26_McKenzie_Shipbuilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appledore_Shipbuilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailsa_Shipbuilding_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_Hunter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarrow_Shipbuilders_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Shipbuilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VT_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Lithgow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Shipbuilding_and_Engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26P_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Marine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cammell_Laird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clelands_Shipbuilding_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Govan_Shipbuilders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwall_Yard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Robb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%27s_Dock_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Doxford_%26_Sons Greenock1998 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have roughely checked some of them. All that I looked at seems to meet WP:NCORP respectively WP:NPERSON for persons. If you want me to have a detailed and explained look at one or two of them, tell me which and I can see... Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greenock1998, Seriously, this is racist. All Wikipedia editors are equal. Reviewers review based upon the cotent of the draft before them. Fiddle Faddle 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greenock1998 I have raised this matter on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:09, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Zimne

This is my first submission, I made a first draft and I think I followed the NPOV rules, but it seems I didn't. Can anyone help me understand which points are non-neutral and/or look like advertisement? Zimne (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zimne, the best person to ask is the reviewer who declined it. All of us who review must be able to explain our rationale when asked Fiddle Faddle 22:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:59, 5 October 2020 review of draft by Westfield1800


Westfield1800 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield1800 You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:36, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Hallieedit

Hi, I edited this page and am requesting a re-review. The reason it was rejected was the it does not appear to be notable. The user left the note "The article is about a temporary video store which appears to be no longer open. At the time it received some coverage in blogs and independent media, but no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It does not appear to be notable." However, from this note, it would appear that the user did not even read the page.. The video store was a temporary exhibition, yes, but it makes up maybe 5% of the page's total content. e-flux is not a "temporary video store"; it is an arts institution with a robust platform and a significant spot in the contemporary art world. I am requesting a re-review on the basis that the rejection was unfounded. I've spent the past 6 months editing this page after it initially was taken down because a user flagged it as an advertisement. Since then, I have changed approximate 75% of the wording of the initial page. My investment in this page is that I am a student who has relied on e-flux sources for many years, and I want this wikipedia resource to be available to other people within the arts community. Thanks. Hallieedit (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. You may ask the reviewer if they read the entirety of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:35, 5 October 2020 review of draft by Thesocialmatters


Thesocialmatters (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thesocialmatters You haven't asked a question. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:22:49, 5 October 2020 review of submission by Jamesinhere


I have created draft article, pending review. Need help with template selection. This page is about a kind of certification examination done in the United states to be licensed as a medical coder/Clinical Coder and want to know if I need to use any specific template type in it.

Jamesinhere (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesinhere, generally these things take care of themselves once an article is accepted because other editors jump in. in the search box start typing Template:infobox and see what it brings up as suggested templates. I haven't checked, but there is likely to be a useful one there Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 6

01:23:34, 6 October 2020 review of submission by 41.202.241.36


41.202.241.36 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:24, 6 October 2020 review of submission by WikiSantashines

Hello it has been months since i have submitted my article for review. When will it get reviewed? I have corrected everything. WikiSantashines (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSantashines As noted in the box on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,622 pending submissions waiting for review." There are a limited number of editors that review drafts, and reviews are conducted in no particular order. You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:50, 6 October 2020 review of submission by 64.222.180.90

Pretty notable I think 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:08:05, 6 October 2020 review of submission by Rav Ktoch

I am requesting a re review because the earlier user had added many a non essential and incorrect citations due to which the review got cancelled. I desired to start it fresh from scratch and have given many notable links to the person. Will be highly obliged if it is re reviewed. Rav Ktoch (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Ktoch, I'm afraid the gentleman as written fails WP:GNG and the references do nothing whatsoever to aid your case.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:45, 6 October 2020 review of submission by Earth777


Im not sure why my creation was declined again. i added some references

Earth777 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earth777. The draft does not currently contain any references. Some of your additions were removed for violating copyright. Other information (such as phone numbers) was removed because it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. There is no indication of where the remaining information came from. You should be looking for independent (i.e. not the school's website) reliable sources, and the bulk of any article should come from independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:57, 6 October 2020 review of submission by Glammazon


Glammazon (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through some of my old entries,and have corrected the references on this one. Why are they now at the bottom of the page? Glammazon (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glammazon: Inline citations, <ref> description of reference </ref>, belong in the text of the article, immediately after the material they support. They do not belong in the references section when you're editing the page. Generally, the references section should contain the single template {{reflist}}. When the page is displayed, the reflist will cause the inline citations to appear in the references section. If you omit the reflist, all inline citations will appear at the bottom of the page. See Referencing for beginners. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

00:38:55, 7 October 2020 review of draft by Jrt1234


Hi and thanks in advance for your help. I have been working on a page for Johnny Rotella, the musician and songwriter. I added citations as requested, however when I tried to submit the page for review with tags (songs, composer, biography), I was unable to enter a draft title. I discovered there seems to be a page already approved about Johnny Rotella on the German Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I should be trying to update there (I'm not fluent in German), or if it makes sense for me to continue creating the new page.

Jrt1234 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrt1234: You don't need to enter a title when submitting. The reviewer will take care of the title for you when the draft is accepted. Please note that seperate language versions are idfferent projects with different rules. Therefore, the existence of an article in one language cannot be cited as an argument for the existence in a different one. As for the current draft, I am not certain that it meets WP:NPERSON. imdb.com, Discogs and Wikis arent a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:17, 7 October 2020 review of submission by WesternCentral


I am requesting feedback/input on the proper way to submit an article (or stub/sub-section/redirect) for a candidate for a significant California state senate district. I understand the article as-is lacks enough information to be approved, but I would like some guidance on whether:

  1. this article would be accepted after significant expansion (though mostly limited to the context of the election)
  2. this info would be better inserted as a sub-section of another page, or stub
  3. there's very little chance this would be accepted at all
  4. other recommendations...

My original talk on the AFC repeated here:

The page on Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is ~6 years old and related pages are similarly outdated and/or indigestible so I'm unsure of the ideal process/categorization for this submission, including whether a stub, redirect, or sub-section would be more appropriate. I can add a significant amount of additional material/references, albeit minimally outside the scope of the campaign/election, but I wanted to get the ball rolling just to collect more input on the best way to handle this submission. -- WesternCentral (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Examples of additional references:


WesternCentral (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WesternCentral. Candidates who are running for a state legislature might be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia) for something outside of their campaign (e.g. being a notable sportsperson, entertainer, author, ...), but their candidature does not give them inherent notability.
Every candidate receives some degree of press coverage, proportional to the importance of the office. A frequent argument is that such baseline coverage should be discounted, that it doesn't truly indicate that the person is "worthy of notice", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". On these and other grounds, articles about candidates are often deleted, merged, or redirected to articles detailing the race in question. There is no consensus as to whether there is a measure of coverage, as a candidate, that can make a candidate notable. For example, there is a biography of Ammar Campa-Najjar, but Theresa Greenfield is a redirect. (There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield, but it may be hard to follow for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes).
The least contentious path to follow would be to create Kipp Mueller as a redirect to 2020 California State Senate election#District 21. If Mueller is elected, then he will be considered notable, and the redirect could then be expanded into a biography. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:08, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Rashika Maithani


Rashika Maithani (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I just wanted to ask that why Chahat Aggarwal's profile is getting deleted on wikipedia.

@Rashika Maithani: Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles", Wikipedia has articles on subjects that meet Wikipedia's special meaning of notability, in this case, a noteable person. The draft was deleted two times today, both times for promotion. I am unable to read deleted pages and can therefore not tell you how worse it was. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:20, 7 October 2020 review of draft by Rotideypoc41352


I'm not the article creator; this draft first came to my attention way back in mid-August, when the creator asked for some minor technical help at the Teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1072 § Need help! How do I move this page into review for creation of a publicly accessible page?). As of my answering of that question, the draft has significant coverage from multiple sources with editorial oversight that are independent of the subject. So I am surprised to see the draft being declined for failing GNG (and tone, but that's a matter of what the sources themselves say...). I open this discussion because Nick Moyes' comment at the linked Teahouse question concurs with my judgement, leading me to wonder what I'm missing. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:32:06, 7 October 2020 review of submission by SiClaessens

About article BOGDAN & VAN BROECK

I was wondering why you esteem that architectural office BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is not sufficiently notable.

I am happy to provide you with some arguments to try to prove otherwise:

- BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is the architectural office of former Flemish Government Architect Leo Van Broeck ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Government_Architect%7CFlemish Government Architect). The Flemish Government Architect is an important governmental organisation for promoting architectural quality and the built environment in Flanders. Leo Van Broeck was appointed as Flemish Government Architect for 4 years in 2016. He is also involved in the Climate movement. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Van_Broeck

Leo Van Broeck, Founder of BOGDAN & VAN BROECK, has recently been admitted to the Club of Rome (this is not published yet), as soon as it is published we will add this to the wikipediapage.


Founder Oana Bogdan (partner of BOGDAN & VAN BROECK) is a former Secretary of State of Romania (2016-2017) and a much sought-after international speaker in the public debate. She is amongst others a winner of the international architecture competition Europan.


Bureau Bogdan & van Broeck was also nominated for the EU Mies Awards form The EU Prize for Contemporary Architecture in 2018 with the project COOP in Brussels. The EU Mies Awards are considered to be the Oscar of architecture.

BOGDAN & VAN BROECK has previously worked together with the British Architectural company Sergison Bates Architects on an architectural competition.

There is quite some international interest in the architectural office with publications as you can see in the references of the page. I can add more?

I think it is very important not only to have star architects in Wikipedia but also architectural offices who advocate for a qualitative urban space and qualitative architecture.

Since both Leo Van Broeck and Oana Bogdan are very active as partners in the architectural office, I thought it logical to start by adding the office to wikipedia and then add the two founders with a personal page. I planned to add 1 article on the Belgian architecture scene every month. I am, of course, prepared to make adjustments. It would be very nice if you could review this.

SiClaessens (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiClaessens Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is very promotional in nature("BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is in for solidarity on a global level, born out of hope for a common future that offers new possibilities for mankind"); things like "mission" and "vision" are wholly unencyclopedic as they are impossible to independently verify. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have only cited things the company has done- when we are looking for more in-depth coverage. For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article because many independent reliable sources have written at length about the history of Ford and it effects on manufacturing and automobiles, not because trade or other publications mention that Ford has released a new model. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, you must review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:54, 7 October 2020 review of submission by 91.184.79.127


91.184.79.127 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:30, 7 October 2020 review of submission by MisMurphy


MisMurphy (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=982340562"