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
Dartish (talk | contribs)
10 edits
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 671: Line 671:


[[User:Dartish|Dartish]] ([[User talk:Dartish|talk]]) 08:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Dartish|Dartish]] ([[User talk:Dartish|talk]]) 08:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

== 09:19:56, 14 October 2020 review of draft by 2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B ==
{{Lafc|username=2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B|ts=09:19:56, 14 October 2020|draft=Draft:Diane_Andersen}}


Hello,
you could help me by giving me a procedure to follow.

I have two quality secondary sources; the vast majority of paragraphs are based on these two sources. I thought that quoting them as a reference once each was sufficient.
Here are my two questions

1, do you think that Mrs Andersen with her career, her recordings ... deserves to have a page in Wikipedia? And that therefore the refusal is only due to my inexperience...
More than 70 cd's and 33 lps are listed in Worldcat for Ms. Andersen.

2, should I fill in one or both of my two sources in each paragraph for the article to be accepted?

Yours sincerely

thank you in advance for your help

Guy

[[Special:Contributions/2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B|2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B]] ([[User talk:2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B|talk]]) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:19, 14 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 8

00:05:34, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Stephanie.thompson

Pat Allen is a prominent art therapist in the field of art therapy who has helped pave the way for art therapists such as myself. Her work has influenced the way art therapy is practiced and to exclude her from your website is taking away from the Art Therapy/ Art Therapist page as a whole. I hope you will reconsider your decision. Stephanie.thompson (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie.thompson The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. You offered only primary sources, which do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:30:57, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 65.128.57.17


I wanted to do this as a hobby and show them why is this happneing. 65.128.57.17 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No sources? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:14:04, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JBWPpw


Good Day I am working on my first sbmission (Barry Rumack). The inital version was rejected and I corrected the issues that were brought up and resubmitted it in early August. It has been acknowledged as resubmitted but noting has happened since.Is it typical that it takes this long or should I be doing somethign else. I am hesitant to try a second article until I figure out this process.

JBWPpw (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBWPpw: First of all, please be aware that "rejected" and "declined" have different meanings on AFC context. "declined" means "Eh, this is not yet ready for mainspace, please improve it" while "rejected" means "This cannot be improved to be suitable for mainspace. Please stop wasting everyone's time." Your initial version was declined. Reviewing process takes a while, it is not uncommon that it takes a few weeks. As for the current revision, I am unsure if it meets WP:NPERSON. Imdb.com is not considered a reliable source. While you are waiting, you can theoretically do other stuff. Have a look at the WP:Task Center for ideas. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:51:22, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Philandrews04


Hi, I tried to ad project tags to the draft page called "Origins Science", but the box for "Enter draft page title:" does not have the page called "Origins Science" as an option but it does exist, see the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Origins_Science.

If you could please add this page to the project tags box that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Philandrews04 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philandrews04: that input box was coded badly. It expects from you that you add the "Draft:"-prefix for things to work, i.e. "Draft:Origins Science". I have already added 1 WikiProject tag for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philandrews04 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:54, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 39.41.15.245


39.41.15.245 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:05:08, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Crystalcommunication


This is practically my first article on this person who's work already features on Wikipedia, but when I am trying to like those work as reference or any other website as reference article why it's not been accepted as reference. Since the person is a filmmaker most of his articles are on websites which are more of PR driven websites, in such case the IMDB is only reliable option left, but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't even accepts IMDB, in such case how would one can verify the person to satisfy the needs of Wikipedia.

The reason why I am asking this question is because there are 2-3 other interesting people I wanted to write about, they are still beginner and does not have much to talk about compare to the person I am writing about here, for such articles how do we get really deserving people featured on this platform.

Your guidance will me improve my work and will make contribute more frequently. I am quite stuck on this one article for a while to understand how to correct it and should not repeat the same mistake again in future articles. For reference you can google the persons name to understand the available source of information on web space about him, maybe that way you will be able to guide me better that which reference to take and which one to avoid.

Thanks.

Crystalcommunication (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystalcommunication: It's funny you should mention PR when your username happens to match a business that does digital marketing (that or this one), which is a violation of the username policy and suggestive of serious violations of our terms of use. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:54, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Spotify1451


I have a problem submitting my draft to the article. Can you explain to me how to do it. Spotify1451 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify1451, the current state is "Submitted for review" whcih ought to be what you woudl like. Is there any further help you need? Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotify1451, no Declined because there are no references.
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 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:39:46, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Silverline03



Silverline03 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silverline03, Traditionally a help desk is where you ask a question and receive an answer. Perhaps you might like to ask your question? Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:49, 8 October 2020 review of submission by 103.12.120.194

{{Lafc|username=103.12.120.194|ts=13:31:49, 8 October 2020|page= Draft:Amanat Ali (born 1987)


Hi Volunteers and Administrators

First, let me make it clear that i have not been paid and this is voluntary work, else I would have disclosed it if i was getting paid. This artist Draft:Amanat_Ali_(born_1987) won music award and participated in SaReGaMaPa 2007 and was a 2nd runner up. He has sung more than two songs for bollywood movies and launched his debut album in 2009, so he is passing WP:NMUSIC and article is made on neutral point of view. My question is, there are four Amanat Ali (including him) and an editor suggested a date of birth along with his name, but i think instead of a date of birth can editor rename this page to 'Amanat Ali (Pop Singer) or Amanat Ali (Popstar) because he is not a classical singer but Pop Singer and yes he is from the family of Sham Chaurasia gharanaa musician family who has this artists Amanat Ali Khan Ustad Amanat Ali KhanShafqat Amanat Ali as Mr. Amanat Ali is a fourth generation somehow as his father Nazakat Ali was also a notable musician.

I have not seen any musician or artist whose name comes with the date of birth, as three Amanat's Ali are classical singers and this Amanat is a pop singer so the best name should be Amanat Ali (Pop Singer) as suggested by the news references.


103.12.120.194 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been submitted yust 2 days ago. There are 0 submissions waiting for two months already. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not asking for a review basically but requesting title change information.

--103.12.120.194 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am getting you rightly, you want Amanat Ali (pop singer) to be the title of the mainspace artice after this draft is accepted. I would suggested it be only Amanat Ali (singer). I would've made a draft move to the request but I will leave it on normal AfC process. Thank you ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aafi yes you are right all 4 amanat ali are singers (two died), two are alive one is Shafqat Amanat Ali and second is Amanat Ali, while Shafqat is also a singer but he is a classical singer while this Amanat is a pop singer. so i the (singer) should be ok too.

--103.12.120.194 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:27, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Samjoka


Samjoka (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what kind of info and reliable sources the reviewer needs to see. The information provided is neutral and factual and would be known in the aggregate only by the creator of this page. In addition the linked articles are verifiable through the links. Please help. Thanks.

Please review WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia articles should be mainly based on what reliable (no user-generated content) independent sources (no interviews or press releases) with some coverage of the subject. This submission's sources seem to fail the independent part. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjoka (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:57, 8 October 2020 review of submission by EmanuelB2019

Hello! I am writing to kindly ask you to re-evaluate publication of the Carmen Harra page. I built this page step by step over the course of six months, during which time I received Sulfurboy and MurielMary's valuable guidance. In the end, 1292simon decided unilaterally that the page was a "promotional article" without arguing his point of view in any way. MurielMary mentioned that she does not share the same opinion about the page being a promotional article. She stated, "I disagree, I don't think this article is promotional. It's actually very factual and objective. However, I don't think that the draft shows sufficient notability for Harra to have an article on WP. Writing books and appearing on TV/radio shows doesn't equal notability." I can understand that we are all subjective but I hope I am not dealing with a case of gender discrimination. I checked the sources that certify notability and I've studied Wikipedia's criteria to publish a page dedicated to a public person. Carmen Harra meets this criteria and I invite you to check as well. Here are some mentions of the name "Carmen Harra" in the databases indicated by Wikipedia to check notability: 1. The New York Times (NYT): "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims." https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/style-change-your-life-boost-your-aura.html 2. Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek): "Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-06-18/books-that-matter 3. Fox News: "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG." https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/08/19/how-many-types-of-relationships-are-there/ https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/05/20/how-to-know-if-you-and-your-partner-are-a-perfect-match/ 4. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 148, Number 357, 22 December 2004, Page 17: "Carmen Harra's Jewelry" show at QVC. Indeed, Carmen Harra had her own jewelry line at QVC. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS20041222.1.17&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-carmen+harra-------1 5. The Hollywood Reporter (THR) "There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-psychics-are-new-have-520837 6. http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/2006225405/2016-06-17/ed-1/seq-21.pdf In addition, for the correct evaluation of the page, keep in mind the following aspects: 1. Carmen Harra has written six books that are found in the Library of the American Congress. 2. Carmen Harra appears in the Central American press, in newspapers such as the New York Post, and on television stations such as NBC New York and CBS Los Angeles. 3. Carmen Harra currently hosts her own radio show on an American station named OMTimes Radio. I have browsed many pages published on Wikipedia in recent years, about all kinds of people who have performed in their fields of activity and who deserve to be included in the most important online encyclopedia. In doing so, I noticed that this writer, who is on the same level as other public figures on Wikipedia, does not have a page. There are many similar pages already published about: Romanian beautician Anastasia Soare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Soare Romanian singer Andreea Balan, who has no appearance in the US press and whose career is known only in Romania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Bălan Romanian TV presenter Andreea Esca, whose career does not span in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Esca American psychic Colette Baron-Reid, whose page is devoid of reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid Many of the pages I listed do not meet the notability, neutrality, and documentation of the Carmen Harra page. This is why I'm so surprised that this page--which was built according to the moderators' instructions--was rejected for reasons that cannot be objectively argued. Wikipedia also indexes many people who have "stood out" publicly by committing abominable deeds or for being famous by association; in their case, notoriety over notability. But this sort of information is normal to appear in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia groups information from absolutely all fields of activity. Even though it is normal to be subjective, we must recognize the professional merits of others. I call on the fairplay of the Wikipedia community to apply the same rules to all published pages. The "Carmen Harra" page reached its present form after six months of editing and assistance from moderators who lent their precious time to help correct and verify presentation of information. Thank you and I look forward to your feedback! EmanuelB2019 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EmanuelB2019, I'm afraid that was tl;dr but please never use other articles as exemplars of why an article should be treated the same way as they are treated.
An approach, and one I dislike, might be to accept the draft and expose it to the will fo the community, but that can be a salutary experienece.
1292simon, Sulfurboy, MurielMary, you all declined or rejected this draft. You probably would wish to be alerted to comment Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Fiddle Faddle.

I strongly dispute the suggestion by EmanuelB2019 that gender discrimination has been a factor in the draft being declined by 3 separate reviewers. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1292simon, Fiddle Faddle, I apologize for the comparisons, in the courts it has become mandatory to refer to the solutions offered in other similar cases. My intention was just to show you that it should be decided using the same relevant arguments. Wikipedia's rules must be applied equally and non-discriminatory. I worked on this page for 6 months with two moderators and it was declined with concrete arguments, I solved the problems and then it was rejected without arguments by a third moderator. I came up with counter-arguments to which I did not receive any answer for almost 5 months. I know that moderators do volunteer work and have limited time. So are the contributors, as I strive to be. I understand the dispute with arguments, but I cannot understand the final verdicts without justification. It's like being sentenced to death without being told why your life is being taken. I think Wikipedia works on the right principles. I'm just a contributor requesting a re-evaluation of his page and I should get this within a reasonable time. I ask that other moderators than those involved so far evaluate my work and decide whether or not this topic is worth a Wikipedia page. Thank you!EmanuelB2019 (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved observer, it is unclear to me what the subject is supposed to be notable for. For singing? For being a psychologist? For being an author? For being an "intuitive counselor", whatever that is? Merely existing and having multiple jobs/hobbies doesn't make a person notable, it has to be clear what the person is widely known for, and then that has to be amply established in the article, supported by reliable secondary sources that go into detail talking about the subject and their work in that area. If I mention J. K. Rowling, you know what she is notable for, and you know that there are ample news articles that go into detail about the subject, her life, her efforts writing the Harry Potter series, her charitable causes, her provocative social media posts, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • EmanuelB2019, your comparison that this experience is "like being sentenced to death without being told why your life is being taken" is unwarranted. Regarding the timeline, there are approximately 3600 other drafts also waiting review, and I don't see a reason why yours deserves special treatment. 1292simon (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyphoidbomb Firstly, you can not compare her to J.K. Rowling, who is a literal household name. Let’s take several other authors as examples who do hold the privilege or having a Wikipedia page but who may not be as famous as the creator of Harry Potter: Zora Neale Hurston, Sarah Osborn, Edith Wharton. Have you heard of these authors? Unless you’re a literature major, I’m willing to bet you haven’t. And yet, they are on Wikipedia because they have been published, just as Carmen Harra has. Secondly, you are picking apart the different aspects of Carmen Harra’s career, which should be taken into consideration together. Many people don’t have only one job. Or, they have a job that leads them to another one, in this case, writing books based on her work as a psychologist and counselor. Carmen Harra may not be a household name, but she is still widely known: she has written seven books that have sold internationally, she has been a successful singer since her teenage years (in fact, she was/is a very famous singer in her birth country, Romania), a host and guest on many major TV and radio networks, and a respected psychologist/therapist. The fact that she is also intuitive doesn’t entitle you to dismiss her credibility, but adds another layer of notability to her career: entire articles have been written around her intuitive abilities by national and international magazines. Might I add that Wikipedia boasts a plethora of pages built for self-proclaimed intuitives: Colette Baron-Reid, Thomas John Flanagan, James Van Praagh, and many more. In Romania, Carmen Harra is a household name. And in America, she has gained enough recognition to be deemed well-known and reputable. Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Praagh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_John_Flanagan EmanuelB2019 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I gave off the impression that you and I were having a debate. We are not. I offered my opinion on why I think the article is problematic. You can take my opinions and use them to improve your draft, or you can disregard them. I don't care. Fighting with everybody, however, is not going to make your draft go live any faster. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1292simon I do not demand a privilege, but only a correct attitude and an equal application of the Wikipedia regulations for all subjects. You can decline a page because it does not comply with the rules and say what needs to be added. It is not fair to reject a topic because it seems to you that it is promotional, without arguing it in any way. MurielMary said she didn't agree with you. Somewhere you have to be objective and fair. In your opinion, if a court has 3600 cases to be solved, it must sentence a man to death by mistake, just because there are still cases that need to be solved.EmanuelB2019 (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, dear editors of Wikipedia! I am writing here because I am badly impressed by the fact that you do not give an international personality like Carmen Harra the "right" to have a page on Wikipedia. Why? This is the question. I read many of Carmen Harra's books, saw her on TV in America and Europe and listened to her music for over 40 years. I don't know who decides on Wikipedia and if there are other interests in the middle than the notability you claim every time. And I would agree with this harsh policy if the moderators who cut the meat and rejected the page would have arguments in the case of this decision. If a man who is an American citizen, has been singing for a lifetime, has written so many books, appeared in TV shows of some major US stations, he has no "notability", then Wikipedia seems to have lost the correct meaning of this term. I wanted to leave this comment for the moderators who "forgot" to offer arguments for their decision. I think that the moderators of Wikipedia are in an error and as a simple user of Wikipedia, I ask them to reanalyze this page. Even if you only use Google searches, you can tell if a person has "notability" or not. I am waiting for an answer that also contains arguments because what I read above from some moderators is incredible to me, it seems ambition without cause. You feel strong in relation to the page of a public person who has absolutely no guilt to be put in the corner on Wikipedia. I do not understand this attitude and this case should attract the attention of major moderators who should take all measures to ensure that the rules are applied correctly and not discriminatory. It's about the prestige of Wikipedia after all. Thank you insofar as you will be able to be equidistant and give to Caesar what is Caesar's.AndreiT2021 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:55, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Tuxxego


hello,

I created an article of Darkscrolls a few months ago. and it was rejected. I edited everything and it looks more like a wikipedia page now. if you can may you review it again?

tuxxego

edit: I have removed the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxxego (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Tuxxego (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxxego, Based solely on the information in your draft I think WP:TOOSOON applies. Notability is not yet established Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:55, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Céideadh


I have been that my article (stub) on Dario Dzamonja needs more references. I understand the reasons for this request. But what I was trying to do here was merely to translate the original Bosnian-language Wikipedia entry and make it readable for native English speakers. I did not planning on adding to the content. Here is the page: https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_D%C5%BEamonja So I am just wondering how the BS original made it through the review process - since it contains exactly the same set of references as my version. Maybe different standards apply to EN and BS versions of Wikipedia? - if so I understand. Please let me know. Céideadh

Céideadh (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Céideadh, Every language version of Wikipedia has subtly different acceptance/deletion criteria, because each is independent of the others, albeit broadly the same Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:28, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Eswnav


Eswnav (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review this page and move to an article.

@Eswnav: you have added exactly 'one source. I am no going to ping @David.moreno72: who rejected the draft if the addition of https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/natpadhigaram-79-review/article8346415.ece/amp/ changes anything about notability. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:10, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Necirvanyousif


Necirvanyousif (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC) I requested that because all my information is correct and this person is very famous in Iraq now because of his songs and he wanted me to add him to Wikipedia[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim made in the article must be sourced to a strong secondary source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 18:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Necirvanyousif: this submission lacks any form of verification. As such, it currently fails WP:BLP and WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:46, 8 October 2020 review of submission by XavierWilliamson101

I wasn't trying to do plagiarism. Can you help me make it not plagiarism??XavierWilliamson101 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)XavierWilliamson101 XavierWilliamson101 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierWilliamson101: I don't know where you got the idea of the draft being rejected for plagiarims issiues. Draft:Acer_Chromebook_Spin_713 was rejected for failing the purpose of Wikipedia, as we don't host reviews. If you want to make a serious attempt at creating an article about that topic, this guide may help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:17, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Anya Kurkina


Hi, I was hoping you could provide guidance on how to submit this article for re-assessment since it has been edited. I have disclosed that I was hired to edit it and I would love the community's input on my edits and what I should be fixing further. Thank you for your help.

Best, Anya --Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kurkina The answer has not changed since you asked earlier (see above). 331dot (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:18, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Starrlightmighty5

What should I add to make this acceptable?

Starrlightmighty5 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starrlightmighty5, evidence of notability. 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 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:44, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 66.75.0.28


Why are interviews not considered reliable if they are on reputable news outlets like Bloomberg, fox business, and business insider?

66.75.0.28 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources. We prefer secondary sources for most content, and as it pertains to demonstrating notability, we require independent sources. An interview is dependent on the responses of the interviewee, so it is not independent, and does nothing to assert notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

01:18:46, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 216.174.68.251


I cannot add more than I have? Do you have further suggestions?

216.174.68.251 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:16, 9 October 2020 review of submission by KellyChristineN


If I say "X was interviewed on Bloomberg" Without giving any more information than that, can I just link the interview on YouTube? There is no specific information or biased information being stated except what you can easily see with your own eyes. Also, if someone is named chairperson of a board, can I not use the primary source from the company? The company should know better than anyone who is on staff. It's simply verifying employment at that point.

THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IN THE SLIGHTEST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of unacceptable sources is a failure condition for a draft. Interviews and company pressers are unacceptable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:42, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47


2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47 (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC) trigonella phoenum graecum:[reply]

06:43:52, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 45.251.65.207


Hi, I am editing the wiki page for my company. The page publish requested was rejected by "notability". I need some advice on how to rewrite the content or improve the quality of the page.

Thanks, Lance


45.251.65.207 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are User:Landzostar and simply forget to log in. Next Problem, if it is your Company, we are definitely in WP:PAID area. As for User:Landzostar/sandbox, what we would need right now evidence of WP:NCORP, i.e. Your WP:THREE best sources by your consideration, and then we can look further. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:30, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47


2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC) trigonella phoenum graecum:[reply]

Hello, there are no edits from your IP besides the two from today. May I ask which draft you talk about, and what is your question so I can respond to it? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:37, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Ashwin Kumar A P


The person about whom this article is, is a nationally renowned academic in India. He has headed the country's most prestigious Business School (IIM, Bangalore) and was a member of the Yashpal Commission, a Govt of India committee to rejuvenate higher education in the country. Ashwin Kumar A P (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Ashwin Kumar A P[reply]

12:04:08, 9 October 2020 review of draft by Marija W Marinkovic


Hello, I reсeived answer that our article is to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Can you help me what part of informations in our article I must to change?

Marija W Marinkovic (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:39, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Cledd

I'm not sure why the Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW page was rejected, because there are other local unions that have their own Wikipedia page, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1199SEIU_United_Healthcare_Workers_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFCW_Local_1776 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIU_32BJ

I made the appropriate changes based on previous feedback. I was told that there weren't enough references in the article and after I updated it with news articles (because it lacked newsworthiness), there are now too many references. Is there something I can do that would get the page published? I also do not have any financial connection to the organization. Cledd (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cledd, New editors often confuse quantity of references with quality. There is a tightrope to be walked. If a reference fails WP:42 - a summary, not a policy - then it is probably no use.
Once a fact is verified then it is verified.
All we need is for you to show that the entity is notable. Often a smaller, tighter article, with fewer, better references is what is required Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky Sasquatch (game) declined

16:27:12, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Redpanda0310

I want help please. I understand I needed to cite more sources, I just didn't know where to put the in-line citations. Can anybody help me place the citations? Leave a message on my talk page, and I'll send you some possible sources and stuff. :> (The afc in question in Sneaky Sasquatch [Game].) redpanda0310 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC) redpanda0310 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

16:59:41, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Carthex


Carthex (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carthex: Normally, a Help desk is a place where you come when you have a question. So may we start with your question please? Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia. I'm Resubmitting my article for review. I don't know why I keep getting declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthex (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carthex: Ah okay. thats something we can start with. First of all, lets ping @David.moreno72: so he can comment here if he wishes so. Not to the current draft version. The current draft has exactly one non-independent source and therefore currently doesn indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER or WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Victor Schmidt . I will be so glad for the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthex (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous review at Draft:Phycogenics

Editors recreated Draft:Phycogenics after it was previously deleted as a declined stale-draft and also filed a REFUND for the previous content. I revived that old history, so I'm done with admin side of things. I'm leaving it to AFC folks to revive (or not) any previous review/deletion tags from the previous attempt. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Timtrent! DMacks (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks, easy enough to do and a pleasure to help. I think the requesting editor has an uphill struggle, and I hope they succeed Fiddle Faddle 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:01, 9 October 2020 review of submission by SpencerEC


SpencerEC (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Requesting a re-review because the subject is the only operating hospital in the U.S. that uses aversion therapy, making it unique. Information based on 3rd party sources. Verbiage is neutral and non-promotional. Purpose of the article is to provide neutral, 3rd party information about aversion therapy techniques for addiction.[reply]

I've took a look at it. Still no evidence of notability, in this case WP:NCORP (AFAIK there are no seperate criteria for hospitals). As for the sources:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes seems to be independent Yes Likely historically a reliable paper No Not even two full sentences. Probbably secondary, cant realy determine that.
No Published by the organisation (Yust caóunt the ocurreence of First person pronouns) Yes Likely a reliable source, even if its a scan Yes About two pages No published by the hospital, therefore WP:PRIMARY
Still no evidence of any notability. I haven't looked further. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt, I see the editor has self declared paid editing. and I feel paid editors are very much 'in a class of their own' when it comes to receiving help from volunteer editors. I view them as sufficiently competent to succeed or fail without help because they are paid. Bad ones may need to be assisted to leave, though Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:55, 9 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


If I say "X was interviewed on Bloomberg" Without giving any more information than that, can I just link the interview on YouTube? There is no specific information or biased information being stated except what you can easily see with your own eyes. Also, if someone is named chairperson of a board, can I not use the primary source from the company? The company should know better than anyone who is on staff. It's simply verifying employment at that point.

I received a non-answer to this question so I'm asking it again. I AM NOT USING THE INTERVIEW AS EVIDENCE, I'm simply stating that an interview took place and linking it. The person who responded to my question completely glossed over it and I would like a legitimate answer to why I can't simply state a fact.

Thank you for elaborating on your original response.

KellyChristineN (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did give you a legitimate answer: If you cite them, they will likely cause any reviews to fail. Your goal in the drafting phase is to show how the subject is notable, and any sources that don't help with this goal are going to drag the draft down. (We also do not allow external links in the body of the article outside of citations.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 23:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

01:43:27, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


What constitutes an interview? If a subject is quoted in an article, does that count as an interview? Or is it considered a secondary source because the quote was pulled from a primary source?

KellyChristineN (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject is merely quoted and the source otherwise doesn't talk about them in depth, that is not significant enough of coverage to use. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 03:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of sources, none of them are particularly useful. The vast majority are name-drops/sound bites or press releases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KellyChristineN, I note your declaration that you are not a paid editor. Thank you. I have removed the banner.
I have examined the draft and left you a substantive comment upon it which I hope you will allow you to make confident progress Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:05, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA

this page was updated with sources 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added exactly one source. Still no evidence of WP:NARTIST or WP:NCREATIVE, not to mention WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:37, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Shahnawaz rules


I want to delete my Draft page this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lahore_Motorway_City

Please delete it . i am trying from month

Shahnawaz rules (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahnawaz rules: There is no reason to delete the draft. If it remains unedited for six months, it will be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:56, 10 October 2020 review of draft by AlbusHaversham


Hi guys, can someone help? I am new to Wiki and trying to improve articles on Feline Health. I am writing one on Feline urethral obstruction (it's in draft form atm, not submitted) but I want to change the title of the page. How can I do this?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbusHaversham: You may find Your First Article usefull. Your draft currently has exactly zero sources, and therefore fails WP:V. As for changing the title, this would require a move. You can request a specific move at Wikipedia:Requestsed moves. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know it has zero sources! That's why it's a draft and not submitted for review yet. The sources will be added once the text has been written. My question was just about changing the title. Moving it seems a hassle. How can I delete it and start again? AlbusHaversham (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlbusHaversham. On the hassle scale, deletion is exponentially higher than moving. "Deletion" doesn't actually remove anything, it's just an administrator hiding versions from the view of the average person. The right thing to do in the circumstances is to move the draft to a new name. The plain and simple process is to click "Move" (probably on the "More" menu in the upper right), overtype the current title with the new title, enter an explanation in the reason box, and click the "Move Page" button. Not much to it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Worldbruce. That's a lucid and very helpful explanation. The hassle scale explains things perfectly! AlbusHaversham (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I can't find the Move Command on my draft article page - there is no "More" menu in the upper right corner of my page. Where can I find it?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:48, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Samjoka


Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. Further several of the links under "notable articles" in the proposed page are from independent well-known publications with the person's name shown on their sites. Thank you.

Samjoka (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its probbably independent, yes, but at least this particular page on newgeography.com doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not on its own, but in combination with the other independent links provided under notable articles?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjoka (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:01, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020

I have made a lot of changes to the page as suggested by the reviewers. But no reviewer seems to be reviewing it for quite a while. Please could you help(Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:17, 10 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Digimasters.in

{{anchor|17:30:17, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Digimasters.in



Digimasters.in (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:08, 10 October 2020 review of draft by Mysteriumen


What is the best practice in reuse of sources cited in an article about a unique subject. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysteriumen: I am not entirely sure what you mean. Does WP:REFBEGIN help you? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt I see. I could easily plagiarize WP:PLAG an article by “stealing” its sources, or what is the consensus/stance on reuse of sources from a cited article? I have built the draft mostly on reading one source, quoting other sources. If if I include references to sources quoted in an article, I am hiding the fact that my article Draft:CONARC_(Consulta_National_de_Rebeldías_y_Capturas_/_National_Register_of_Fugitives_and_Arrests)_in_Argentina relies heavily on one source. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 18:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriumen, Generally we expect an article to be broadly based, not relying in a single source. My normal recommendation for creating an article is to:
  • Identify references that pass muster. WP:42 is a useful guide
  • From the references, extract the facts that the article requires
  • Organise those facts into a storyboard.
  • Write the article, with the facts cited by broadly based references
Putting the question back to you, is what you are doing/planning congruent with that concept? Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent Thanks. I think I am.
There is the issue of the subject independent sources. Because the subject is a governmental database, the only truly non-independent sources are that of the government operating them, I believe.
There is the issue of the article taking the form of an article about the controversy (is this a big problem? as it is not clear if the subject is notable without the controversy), and what are independent sources of the controversy, as such. Because the subject of the article is mostly mentioned as a controversy. From the top of my search I find four sources that each demand scrutiny. (http://technologyreview.com / http://washingtonpost.com / http://onezero.medium.com / http://hrw.org ) without including any of the sources they quote. Two of the sources quoted another (hrw.org) and at least one quoted the earliest mention of the subject of my article (onezero.medium.com) Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriumen, In that case all you can do is your best work. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:30, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


I found new articles and got rid of the press releases, but I'm just trying to see what I can and can't use. And I can't seem to get a clear answer to this question. So, I'm asking again, does the subject being quoted at all in the article negate the article as an interview? Or does the subject just have to be mentioned multiple times and not quoted ever?

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN, where there is significant comment about the subject in addition to interview quotes, then there is a broader balance. 'Significant' tends to mean 'in excess of three normal sized paragraphs'.
As a personal choice I discourage interview pieces entirely, if the article relies on them. If you have three (see WP:THREE excellent references outside any of the more commented upon interview pieces then my attitude relaxes. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KellyChristineN: It might be easier for people to help you if you'd stop creating multiple discussion threads about the same issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:48, 10 October 2020 review of draft by UKArchaeologist


May I please request a review of the previously-declined draft?


IMPROVEMENTS:

I was advised that the article read like an advertisement:

  • I have made significant NPOV edits with the aim of achieving an encyclopedic tone.

I was advised that the article did not provide sufficient evidence of notability:

  • Added newspaper articles discussing work done by the company. The articles contain significant, independent coverage of John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS), some of which are also reliable, secondary sources.
  • Added reference to reliable academic journals which contain very significant coverage of JMHS. Many pieces in academic journals are primary sources and therefore do not prove notability. However, I have included the Oxoniensia chapter from Hugh Coddington and Richard Oram who are not (and have never been) JMHS employees, who provide a synthesis and interpretation of the work done by JMHS in 2013 (similar chapters appear in many of the more recent Oxoniensia volumes, but not all are available online so I thought this would be a nice one for reference).
  • The other references included in this draft are significant, independent, reliable, AND/OR secondary, and may or may not prove notability (I’ll leave that to you who has more experience than I do).

Thank you for your time and consideration. Regardless of your ultimate decision, any further help/advice/feedback is always appreciated.


UKArchaeologist (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UKArchaeologist I'm sorry, but the draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about the subject and what they do; it must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article not just because they exist and sell cars, it does because multiple independent reliable sources have extensively written about the company and its effects on manufacturing and assembly lines. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:59, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA

updated bio of living person

2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to show that this musician meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable musician. Just linking to their "mixtapes" is not sufficient, as it is not difficult for any person to post their music online. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:25:42, 10 October 2020 review of submission by FrankCarlotta1

I don't understand why this got rejected and I'm looking for assistance. Here was my response to the editor: Draft talk:VING Organic Vodka From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Contested deletion[edit source] This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Ving Vodka is an extremely important spirit to be notated on Wikipedia for the public in regards to how the industry is changing to organic spirits in the alcohol business. Ving has affected the industry globally. As stated in the text, Ving provides education and clean consumption options that didn't exist before. Please reference the articles, awards, and press the brand has garnered. Also, there is no other spirit in the world that is focused on wellness and health in the spirits industry. There are many, many other brands on Wikipedia that have similar or, less education attributes that can clearly be misconstrued as advertisements pages for the brands eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%27s_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goose_(vodka), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Head_Vodka, etc. In addition, it's very important for Wikipedia to be up-to-date on women-owned businesses and how important they are to American economic growth and to inspire young women to start their own businesses. Vonge, LLC, Ving Vodka, and Flo Vinger have been certified by the WBENC, which is the most respected women's business certification. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or address any Wikipedia concerns. ) --FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC) FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:06, 10 October 2020 review of submission by GehrigF

I was wondering why my sandbox page is going to be deleted. It's about me, I'm an artist, and wanted it to be published since I don't have a Wikipedia page about me GehrigF (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GehrigF: See WP:PROMO and WP:MUSICBIO. You are not notable. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

01:44:12, 11 October 2020 review of submission by 96.52.63.203

Hello. Could you please tell me which reference listed is unreliable? Thank you. 96.52.63.203 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:54:41, 11 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Iam randiki


I believe Rev Robert Ngatia is notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. Based in kenya, there are not so many online references. Physical references are available if need be.


Another article worth writing a bout is Bishop Dr Mark Kariuki. He is the general oversea of deliverance church international. He is the General Overseer of Deliverance Church Kenya as well as the former Chairman of Evangelical Alliance of Kenya (EAK). He is the moderator of the inter-religious Council of Kenya and a member of the African Council of Apostles

Iam randiki (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the current draft does not show that. Please also note that Wikipedia's definition of the term notability is a bit different than usual. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iam randiki Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to have significant coverage and be independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:17, 11 October 2020 review of submission by 124.244.183.202


124.244.183.202 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)this is very important[reply]

But it has no sources and Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Please read Your first article for more information. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:26:50, 11 October 2020 review of submission by SONIANKIT135

Sir I lives in Delhi and I know the above named school is a famous school in Delhi, the school has also named in many news channels also and that's why I want to request a re-review. SONIANKIT135 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:21, 11 October 2020 review of submission by SONIANKIT135

Sir you can delete this draft. SONIANKIT135 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:07, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Scientist124

Hi, I would like my recent sandbox article to be reviewed again and accepted because I am not theorising about this supposed event in the article that I submitted.Scientist124 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist124 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed again and tagged for deletion as blatant hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:57, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Ali fattahi project


Ali fattahi project (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to be a successful essayist Can you please help me for the first article? Thankful

15:08:40, 11 October 2020 review of draft by Hobbimasak


Hi, I am a food reviewer in Jakarta, Indonesia who likes to write about F&B cultural development in the region. This is my first post on Wikipedia, not sure about what mistake I made. I am writing about a food site that many Indonesians are currently using, and would think that it will be worth documenting on Wikipedia. Hobbimasak (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbimasak Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of a business or merely telling about a business. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. "Significant coverage" does not include brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, the company website, or other primary sources. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:12, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Steven9102001


Steven9102001 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i tried to make a page for a local compony but it was rejected y maybe you could Willis Talk owners Steven Willis and Sheila Acosta out of Turner Oregon 97392


Willis talk is dedicated to post videos about apps, classic vehicles, Games, travel, exploration, shop hunting,

Steven9102001 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven9102001: Wikipedia only wants articles about companies if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a noteable organisation. None of the sources you added above (which I collapsed) help with that, as they are all user-generated content. Please also note that Wikipedia does not want to promote or "spread the word" about your buissnes, even if its a noble cause. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:22:19, 11 October 2020 review of draft by Fushebjdjwq


Fushebjdjwq (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Your draft is blank. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues(some improper formatting/text placement) and removed a blacklisted link. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:25, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Robertleyva2002


Robertleyva2002 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy is that guy and he is best known for the best thing he is the man

October 12

01:27:30, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 211.245.121.137


Could there be more details on what needs to be fixed in this article so it does not sound like an ad? There isn't any promotional content and the information is cited. In terms of the content, it is also very similar to other similar software: - Sketch (software) - Figma (software) - Adobe XD

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

211.245.121.137 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft only confirms the existence of the software and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Press releases and announcements of routine business do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Please see other stuff exists. Other similar 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. That's why each draft or article is judged on its own merits. I will tag the articles you mention as problematic as they have some of the same issues as your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:39, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Editingwork8

I'm interested in writing about Artificial Intelligence. Please suggest some ideas on which I can write. Editingwork8 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editingwork8 Can I interest you in taking part in an article I endeavour? Need to gather the sources for a section on AI technologyDraft:CONARC (Consulta National de Rebeldías y Capturas / National Register of Fugitives and Arrests) in ArgentinaMysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:36, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Playerpage


My draft was rejected with the note "You need to cite secondary sources (such as reviews of the series) to show that it is notable" and a statement that the series is not notable enough for an article. Also a head-pat regarding how to learn to be a "New Editor" when I have been a Wikipedia contributor since 2006. I find this curious (and a little insulting) as the series is connected to the already-covered "Animated Stories From the Bible," and "Animated Stories from the New Testament," which DO have articles on Wikipedia. The sources used are some of the same as with those series, having been produced by the same production company and creative team. This new article is meant to compliment the old ones--all sources are referenced in the same fashion as in those other Wikipedia articles.

Please help me understand why those sources are sufficient for one article but not for another. Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playerpage: your draft was declined, not rejected. Note that the fact that one artcile exists cannot be cited as an argument for the existence or not-existence of others as articles may slip under the radar, or they may have been created before today's rules were enacted. As this is a volunteer encyclopedia, we can only act on thigns we know about. As for Your draft, it is currently only sourced to imdb.com, which is not a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Declining vs. Rejected seems like a distinction without a difference. The article will never appear on Wikipedia unless I make changes that are vague and unspecific. You are not even the same editor who has "declined" my submission. Without more specific information as you *what* is wanted, I cannot provide it. You say that IMDb is considered unreliable, but your policy link only refers to IMDb as being controversial as of 2019, and even then it sounds like it is a gray area that can depend on the entry--and in the end the policy article says IMDb may be used as an external link, anyway. Please explain how an external link is substantially different than a source, when the point is not to provide a review, but to establish existence. This would make sense if the IMDb reference was brand new, but the "Animated Stories" series, consisting of the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Animated Heroes, is a project of established animator Richard Rich and is now a good 30 years old or more. In addition, IMDb and IMDbPro are considered the gold standard for movie information in the movie industry, and have successfully defended their positions as such in court. [1][2]

The only real difference I see between my article and the earlier articles referencing the same series is an external link to television schedules regarding the episodes. Were I to add a similar link, would this satisfy the vague requirements?

Thank you.Playerpage (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is user-editable and as such is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; if courts wish to consider it a reliable source, that is up to them. A link to a TV schedule does little more than confirm the existence of this series; Wikipedia articles must summarize significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Again you are now the third editor declaring the article unfit, and third with a new criteria. There are a plethora of articles on Wikipedia--and in the Britannica Encyclopedia--that do little more than reference the existence of something. Including the other articles regarding this same series. How can it be insufficient for THIS article? As a knowledge reference, I find the "Already existing doesn't mean it should" argument absurd, as is the "user-editable" argument. *Wikipedia* is user-editable. I am trying to establish the baseline article so that users with more knowledge than myself may update it as needed. And again-again-furthermore-also (*eyeroll) the only difference between this article and the acceptable earlier "Animated Stories" articles is the lack of a schedule link. Lastly, are you seriously saying that US court decisions referenced in a periodical as established as the Hollywood Reporter are unconvincing? That implies that Wiki Editors are able to place their own POV above sourcing of any kind. I await further clarification, but at this point I will refrain from commenting any more until I am able to decipher how to proceed. Playerpage (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Playerpage It is true that Wikipedia is not a reliable source in and of itself. Wikipedia should not be used as a source for scholarly works or other similar needs for information; readers should go to the sources articles provide to hear from reliable sources themselves- so they can evaluate them for themselves. Again, if a court considers IMDB a reliable source, that is up to them; we do not. You are free to work to change that(at the reliable sources noticeboard) if you wish. This is not about the POV of us Wikipedia editors, but about sourcing and notability standards that need to be upheld. We do our best as volunteers doing what we can when we can, but until there is a paid staff of editors here, improper articles can and will get through. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/imdb-beats-lawyers-suit-over-alleged-film-date-error
  2. ^ url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/imdbs-age-censorship-win-affirmed-by-appeals-court-1299490

09:46:20, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 195.99.60.247


Hello, I am having difficulty with following submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Actonians_RFC I do not understand what specific additional sources are needed, or what exactly the people reviewing this require. I have taken care to mirror the approaches taken by similar organisations, who have live pages on wikipedia, but I keep getting the submission declined. Thanks, Marc mowen3278


195.99.60.247 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewers have told you, you have not provided independent reliable sources to support the content of the article. To merit a Wikipedia article, this club must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have only provided sources that are not independent and/or do not offer significant coverage. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Note that as a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us; this is why it is not usually a good idea to pattern what you do after other articles, as those too may be inappropriate. We can only address what we know about. Each draft is judged on its own merits; please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marc mowen3278 Remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:09, 12 October 2020 review of submission by SouthernCharm10!


Hello, I understand that my draft has been rejected due to Wikipedia saying that it is contrary to Wiki but I went ahead and followed a similar outline of Trinity Western University. I did not see a difference in their publication to mine.

I have followed the pillars of Wikipedia and do not have any financial gain from this publication. Can you further explain and help me understand the reasons my publication has not been published and what can I do to improve my publication, so it may be publised.

Thank you SouthernCharm10! (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernCharm10! Please note that it is not usually a good argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist too; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles or article content by us. We can only address what we know about. Note that the article you cite has several maintenance tags for issues that need to be addressed, so it was probably not the best example for you to go by.
Your draft reads as a promotional brochure for the college, as it just tells about the college and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
You do not have to have "financial gain" to be a paid editor. If you are an employee of the college and editing as part of your job duties, you are a paid editor even if you were not specifically instructed or directed to edit by your superiors. If you are just a student, that's not paid editing. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:05, 12 October 2020 review of draft by Monika Antal Craggs


Hi there, I have been tasked to create an entry for the charity I work for (Yorkshire Universities) I am trying to do this during my paid work time. What type of disclaimer should I include? I am trying to make it as objective and neutral as possible to avoid making it sound like a promotion or advertisement and have narrowed it down to the bare minimum facts and included external references. The desired outcome is to have our member universities list and link to the 'YU' wikipedia page as they do with the other membership organisations they belong to. Can you please help me resolve this and publish it?

Monika Antal Craggs (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Antal Craggs First, please review the paid editing policy and make the required formal declaration. Any article about your organization should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The reviewer, though declining your draft, seems to think that it is possible to do that, but you need to provide those independent reliable sources. The draft should focus less on what the organization says about itself(the History section is also completely unsourced) and more on what others say about it. You in essence need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what the independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:26, 12 October 2020 review of draft by Template:Smko47

I submitted a biography for John D. Rees over 2 months ago and I was wondering when it will be reviewed or what I need to do to make it go faster. All help is appreciated. Smko47 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smko47 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smko47 As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,620 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers who do what they can when they can, and in no particular order, so you will need to be patient; you can't "make it go faster".
Just with a quick glance, I'm not certain it will be accepted, as it reads like a resume. I see that you declared a COI, what is the nature of your COI? 331dot (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:46, 12 October 2020 review of draft by DocFreeman24


Hi all,

I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia (been editing for a few months now) and would love some feedback on this draft article in order to better understand why it was rejected. From the comment, it looks like there was some concern about a lack of reliable sources and I'd like to know more about that concern. In particular, what about the articles that were linked made them unreliable? I am happy to locate addition references that I believe make this board game sufficiently notable but would appreciate some guidance so that further submissions are better! Thanks!

DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the game. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You offer two external links but it's not clear that they are intended as references; see WP:CITE for information on properly citing references. Those links are just websites offering the game for sale, this does not establish notability. Mentions of niche industry awards rarely do as well. News coverage of the game, published academic papers about the game, independent unsolicited reviews of the game, are the sorts of things that establish notability. If those don't exist, the game would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Let me take a crack at beefing it up further (there are definitely media articles referencing this game) and I'll resubmit. Cheers! DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've spent several hours working on this today in the hopes of addressing your comments and the others that were left. I would welcome further feedback! Thanks! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:59, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Raddiecat2


Raddiecat2 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raddiecat2: this submission lacks independent sources and as such fails to show how this subject meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable person. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

00:43:01, 13 October 2020 review of submission by 122.177.102.44


Sir, please check any of the companies / links / directly or on Google Digicodes (www.digicodes.in) iVoucher (www.ivoucher.in) Indiacompute (Www.indiacompute.com) Myopencademy (www.myopenacademy.com) Prepaidvirtual (Www.prepaidvirtual.com) Indiweb Holdings (www.indiwebholdings.com)

Digicodes is India's largest digital gaming and e-goods store for example. The company has 3000+ customer reviews and you can find the same on Google also. To be honest it deserves its own Wikipedia page. The same goes for some of the other brands.

Google itself is showing us in the same league as Steam, Gamestop, and other game stores in the 'People also search for' category.

So this page is for the parent organization which is even bigger and incorporates the other brands too.

Please assess basis these facts provided.

122.177.102.44 (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article X's status, existence, or absence is irrelevant to that of Article Y. If anything, you're helping to show the G11 was justified. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 06:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:17, 13 October 2020 review of submission by GianoM

Hello, what kind of cleanup does this draft need?

GianoM (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:41:31, 13 October 2020 review of submission by 2001:8F8:1B21:AECE:2061:D510:B7B5:419


2001:8F8:1B21:AECE:2061:D510:B7B5:419 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:36:10, 13 October 2020 review of draft by Mbounthavong


I want to request a review of the article to determine if it meeting eligibility criteria.

I have included independent references to support statements made about the subject of the article. Of note, I want to highlight the FDA's use of the subject's guidelines to clear develop and use patient report outcome instruments for evaluations.

Thanks for your time and please let me know if there's more that I can do.

Mbounthavong (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbounthavong (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:35, 13 October 2020 review of submission by Djb2183


I believe the subject is indeed notable, and I do not believe anything in the article is promotional. It is just basic facts with nothing more. I removed a couple sources and added a couple more that I think are more in line with what the editor is looking for. Thank you.

Djb2183 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected as not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it won't be re-considered. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:43, 13 October 2020 review of submission by JPSilvaggio


Greetings, 

 Was confused by the reviewers comments that I need 'reliable sources',  am I suppose to link to the independant news articles relating to me.  If so, should I also delete the references I made within the article to the scanned documents proving what I am saying?  Google and Bing's 'Knowledge Panel' lists me as a politican should I include them sources as well?  Please advise.

-John Silvaggio JPSilvaggio (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, We don't care about whatever you have to say about yourself. Second, you need to cite those independent news sources, and you need a news source for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CLAIM the article makes. The Knowledge Graph and its imitators are never a useful source (since most of the time they pull from Wikipedia). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 23:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 14

01:08:28, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Jack beanstalk


I am confused about providing sources that meet eligibility as the sources quotes are from reputable news sources however I only have hard copies as the sources in question do not have online versions due to the time periods. How many reputable sources are needed and how do mange if the reputable sources are pre-internet. This is a small entry for a significant australian poly-artist whose works are displayed in a number of galleries as well as in the main street of a large Australian town.

Thank you


Jack beanstalk (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack beanstalk, I have left what I hope is a useful comment on your draft, and tidied it a little. I have not made a review, simply answered your query there. Fiddle Faddle 07:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:56:11, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Live netram

Seriously this is the article about a cricketer name arun khator but I can't find the correct reference for article please move it to article space. Live netram (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give me advice how my article published what mistake I am doing Live netram (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live netram If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The reviewers have informed you of the reason for the rejection; do you have questions about those reasons? 331dot (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:43, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Aniketkoli02


Aniketkoli02 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We don't care about what you have to say about yourself. (2) We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need to provide a strong secondary source for every claim the article makes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 06:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:25, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka


Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:48, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Dartish


I would like to learn more about citing my own work. I tried 3 times by now but every time my page did not submit. the problem was about the citation that I made. I can't add more citations about my work as I added 2 reliable sources in my article. also, I am the one who owns the information that is taking place in my article so it cant be unreliable. I don't know why you don't accept my work.

Thank you.


Dartish (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:56, 14 October 2020 review of draft by 2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B


Hello, you could help me by giving me a procedure to follow.

I have two quality secondary sources; the vast majority of paragraphs are based on these two sources. I thought that quoting them as a reference once each was sufficient. Here are my two questions

1, do you think that Mrs Andersen with her career, her recordings ... deserves to have a page in Wikipedia? And that therefore the refusal is only due to my inexperience... More than 70 cd's and 33 lps are listed in Worldcat for Ms. Andersen.

2, should I fill in one or both of my two sources in each paragraph for the article to be accepted?

Yours sincerely

thank you in advance for your help

Guy

2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=983453116"