Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Innovatao (talk | contribs) at 18:16, 17 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


January 11

00:01:29, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Esmaeili.nooshin

I am not sure what i need to do for this page to be accepted. We have already submitted a copyright release of our website to Wikipedia and we just want to have a Wikipedia page for our ACSF group. yes the texts are from our website and i am not sure what the problem is and how it can solved? I have aded reference to the website almost everywhere in the text isn't this enough? i appreciate if you let me know what i can do to get this page published. we need this page to be published by end of next week. I really appreciate your help. Thanks


Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esmaeili.nooshin Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to state about an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.
If you represent the organization, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Esmaeili.nooshin I looked for independent media or scholarly coverage of the organization and could only find this brief mention [[1]]. Without coverage to demonstrate notability, the article won't be accepted. All the sourcing there now is controlled by the organization such as its own home page. See WP:RS. Also, you're better off starting with a very short summary of the group without all the flowing language about its mission and detailed calendar of past events, unless they were notable enough to get media coverage. That also hurts the article's chances of ever being approved. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:58:04, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ToruNitadori


I have no idea to be accepted. I added the primary reference "The Echigo Yoita Uchihamono (Cutlery)" website at last publish request. However the reviewer declined it because it needs multiple independent secondary sources. Actually I am a member of this product's union(Echigo Yoita Uchihamono). You can get enough information from the website, so I think the secondary sources is not necessary. And it is defficult to get additional information from other website because there is few English website, which have not enough information. Is it Okey to reffer an japanese website?

Best regards. Sorry for terrible english.

ToruNitadori (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToruNitadori: if english is not your first language, you may want to contribute to Wkipedia in your native language. As for the draft:

04:16:40, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Skitz1allen


Skitz1allen (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitz1allen: There aren't enough sources to demonstrate notability. I see one media source and that's it. You'll need to identify and integrate info from several articles in independent third party sources to demonstrate notability before your draft will be accepted. Also, please see WP:COI if you are the chef. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:24:37, 11 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Geolog10


I was told that my submission was older than 6 months and it was to be removed. It was. So I rewrote the article on Makeda Cheatom, fixed the earlier problems, and submitted the new version. I got back a reply that I should edit the old version. I don't understand what I should do.


Geolog10 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geolog10: please work on the newer version, which appears to be User:Geolog10/sandbox. @SK2242: for your notice. That being said, I do not know why @Timtrent: told you to do a complete rewrite - it would take me around 5 minutes to fix the references up to look like standard and remove the duplication, and 15 minutes if I were to move them to the first occureence (which is more often used on Wikipedia). Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:52, 11 January 2021 review of submission by SambhavBaid95


SambhavBaid95 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(removed article copy) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SambhavBaid95: It looks like this is an attempt to write an rticle about yourelf. While autobiographys aren't forbidden, they are strongely discouraged. This draft lacks reliable sources. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:09, 11 January 2021 review of submission by MdAsifIqbalBD


The article lacked notability, that part has been fixed as the references were added. Also, being the market leader of Ecommerce in Bangladesh, Evaly wiki page should be published as soon as possible.

MdAsifIqbalBD (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MdAsifIqbalBD: I would remove everything that isn't sourced with independent media coverage, and also tone down the promotional language. It's easier to get a shorter, well sourced and well written article approved, and you can add more detailed information if the company gets more media coverage. But if you are connected to the company, please see WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:50, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Tomersl

Can't understand what is wrong. Is it a secret?

Tomersl (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomers1 No, the reason for the decline was given on your draft at the top. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:25, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Jademaisey


I am waiting for a review of my article on the European Pillar of Social Rights. Is there any way I can find out how long this will take? It has been over one month already.

Jademaisey (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jademaisey: No, unfortunally not. Reviewing drafts takes a lot of time and effort, and reviewers do that in their free time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:00, 11 January 2021 review of submission by ShafiShabab32


ShafiShabab32 (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ShafiShabab32 As above "Wikipedia isn't social media, it's not a place for telling the world about yourself, your draft has zero reliable independent sources, and was rejected because you are clearly not notable in Wikipedia terms, like most of us." Theroadislong (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:49, 11 January 2021 review of submission by RameshRana12

Because this is a news media in Nepal, I am creating a encylopedic page for one of the most read online in Nepal RameshRana12 (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:41, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Posuiki


Hi, Happy New Year. I'm new. I want to delete the content of a current sandbox. The reason is that the article I wrote doesn't meet Wikipedia notability criteria. So I just want to delete it. How then do I delete the content to maintain the integrity of my user sandbox? Posuiki (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks[reply]

Posuiki (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posuiki You may just clear all the content from your sandbox, especially if you intend to use it for other purposes later. If you don't intend to use it again, you can request it be speedy deleted by putting the following, {{db-user}} on the page. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:54, 11 January 2021 review of submission by MurphCooper

Hi there! Thanks for helping me get my first page published. I would love some clarification as to why this subject is not notable enough, please! The reference article submitted refers to the subject more than as just a 'mention' in my opinion. So was the page declined simply because one reference article does not suffice? If more, similar articles were submitted for reference would it help justify that the subject is notable? And would that mean that many smaller mentions across multiple articles, can equate to one single detailed article, when it comes to qualifying for notability?

How do I know if it was that the quality of the source wasn't sufficient?

When subjectivity is involved (as I believe it is for these things), it's very hard to know what was missing when no real feedback is given! I appreciate everyone has little time, am just pointing this out.

Thanks for any help. MurphCooper (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MurphCooper You were given feedback by the reviewer on the draft itself. You have a draft that consists of two sentences and one source. A Wikipedia article must be sourced to multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and the article must summarize what those sources say. Please read Your First Article for more information.
If you work for Broadwick Live, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for your help. It was unclear to me whether that feedback was an automated response or not. I see now that it isn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphCooper (talk • contribs) 18:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:10, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

The submission was rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can someone explain why this is and how I can make it sufficiently notable for inclusion?

Barouy13 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barouy13 It appears that the company does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about the company. The sources you offered are only announcements of routine business transactions, which are not significant coverage and do not establish notability. There is nothing that you can do to confer notability on the company through editing; it depends on the sources. If appropriate sources do not exist, the company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field.
If you work for this company, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:28, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Kirsaan.jatt


In response to notability re: sources, I have added references to The Telegraph, The Times, The FT, Drapers, The Mirror and other British media. Happy to discuss and see where the line lies, but I think Thind falls on the side of notability. Kirsaan.jatt (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsaan.jatt The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond a brief mention and talks about the subject in depth. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:35, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Ahassannezhad


Hello, This article Draft:ESam has been declined. How can I modify it in terms of wording and tone?

Ahassannezhad (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Ahassannezhad#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:43:45, 11 January 2021 review of draft by John-editing


Hi — I requested a name-change move of Novosbed to GoodMorning.com (see draft here), but it has not been addressed. Any tips on how to get feedback from other users on the best approach for updating this article? Here's the request that was made on January 6th: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Novosbed) John-editing (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved that per request as there is no opposition. Note that I did not copy the rest of the draft, as I consider "Products" section promotional. MarioJump83! 05:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:51, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Vamsi20



Could anyone review my draft here? It’s been like that for 21 days (3 weeks) and still not re-reviewed. I’ve added sources and fixed the errors, but nobody is still reviewing it. Could anybody do it? Vamsi20 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:54, 11 January 2021 review of submission by Eokeefe1987


My submission has been rejected based on a past rejection from 2006, it looks like it is someone who has tried to create an article by the same name but they aren't the same person. It makes all the rejection points invalid and tricky to rectify.

Eokeefe1987 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eokeefe1987. If that is the case, then feel free to submit again. On a quick glance of your article, however, I suspect it will be declined again because (1) notability isn't well established and (2) the sources aren't reliable. There are higher standards of referencing applied to biographies of living persons. As regards (1), a general rule I apply to my own writing is to express in the first line what makes the subject notable. For example, "David J. Adams is an Australian scientist and academic who is Distinguished Professor of Medicine (if this is what he is) at the University of Woollongong." And then add a few citations. For your reference, the notability threshold will be crossed if you meet the requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. All the best. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eyebeller, just tagging you in case you'd like to weigh in, since you did the review. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I didn't realise that it's not the same person. I declined it on the fact that it fails notability guidelines which was a main reason for the AfD so I just linked the AfD. But yes, I would decline it again in the current state. Eyebeller 10:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:55, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Ermarky


Ermarky (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:40, 11 January 2021 review of draft by Martha mwansa


I need to submit my page article Martha mwansa (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

01:00:26, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Martha mwansa


I need my article for submission Martha mwansa (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:03:20, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Domnipal

I have submitted the draft for review only one time and my ability to resubmit was revoked. I laid out an explanation on its talk page as to why I think the subject is notable and gave my rationale there, waited a couple of days for someone to jump in the discussion and discuss it there but no one showed up. There you will find a detailed review of the references I included in the article. If someone can join the discussion and give constructive feedback, that would be great. Thank you. Domnipal (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Domnipal: The article was rejected for a combination of two reasons: (1) because it did not address the reasons for the first decline, and (2) because you addressed your reviewer condescendingly and disrespectfully. I will say that I agree with the assessments of your behaviour by the three experienced editors you have so far interacted with: GSS, Robert McClenon and Rosguill. Your attitude and language towards GSS was an unjustifiable overreaction. On the matter of your draft, it has been rejected by Robert McClenon. This is different from a decline. It means that it will not be considered further. This can be changed by a decision of the reviewers or of the community. I won't speak for other editors, but I do not support a review of the rejection. You have neither tendered an apology nor shown any understanding of what went wrong. You have not even shown an inclination to try and understand what went wrong. By all indications, you are only at this help desk because as a paid editor, your deliverable is a published article. I support Robert McClenon's suggestion that if this draft is to be resubmitted, it should be blown up and started over, ideally by another editor. Other editors are welcome to add their views and opine otherwise. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC) CE'd comment to change "here" to "at this help desk" at 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

03:25:12, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Hums4r

i am a new wikipedia user, i am trying to contribute to wikipedia. i am basically from kashmir and i want to contribute to wikipedia with kashmiri notable articles. i have started drafting my first article on a kashmiri entrepreneur and i have checked it multiple times and it looks fine to me now, but since i am new i might be wrong, can you kindly assist and guide me on this article. please see if more information is required or it is enough. i'll be very thankful if you help me with my first article and also help me to publish it to main space. Link:- Draft:Zeyan Shafiq

Hums4r (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hums4r I've fixed your link to a proper internal link, the whole web address is not necessary. You have submitted your draft and it is pending review. As noted in the yellow submission box, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,914 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:07, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Greg c1988

Hi,

Is it possible to ask for a review on the decision of declining this article?

Since this article was rejected, there have been 3 more press articles published: 1. https://www.9news.com.au/national/lotto-news-sydney-woman-nearly-wins-millions-in-lottery-misses-out-one-number/66be85b7-adb3-455c-9b59-6f6f70f53464 2. https://au.news.yahoo.com/the-14-billion-in-lotto-winnings-up-for-grabs-this-week-023500130.html 3. https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/get-your-tickets-massive-522-million-lottery-open-to-aussies-c-1867024


Greg c1988 (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greg c1988 Announcements of routine business like the commencement of operations, winners, or what prizes are do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is looking for multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about the organization, not press releases, routine announcements, or brief mentions. The rejection was correct. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:19, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Nan-Chook

Please help me update/edit the sources for the page on Prof. Nizan Geslevich Packin. The professor also writes and publishes regularly financial commentary on Forbes magazine, and her Wikipedia page already includes her profile page there, as well as popular media coverage and some scholarly reviews of her many articles and book chapters and research, in addition to a Youtube video with a spotlight interview and newspaper article about them and profiles by a respected academic organization they are involved with.

Nan-Chook (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nan-Chook: your issue is not improper sourcing, but notability. You need to show that WP:GNG is met. Interviews and articles written by the subject are not independent, and so do not count for the purposes of notability. One example of a good source is an article that profiles the subject. Alternatively, since she is an academic, you could show that she meets WP:NACADEMIC. I should also mention that this help desk is not meant for requests to edit your draft for you. Finally, my own opinion is that the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article: there is not enough coverage of her, and she is too junior an academic. I would suggest that you think very carefully about whether you can demonstrate notability before submitting the draft again. WP:THREE is a good guideline on the subject: identify three of your best sources and see whether they cross the threshold. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 09:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:53, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Greenbangalore


Greenbangalore (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:01, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Balasaheb Salunke

because this information is unique ,which is applicable to our institute only,now their is no copy pasted any matter,this information is useful to students who searches institue for diploma engineering thank you Balasaheb Salunke (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Balasaheb Salunke Wikipedia has no interest in helping prospective students see your school marketing materials. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not what article subjects want to say about themselves. Please see your user talk page for important information I will place there in a moment. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:21, 12 January 2021 review of submission by McFrase

Good day,

Please in response to my article being rejected, I wish to submit it again for a review. I am writing this article on behalf of a mentor who has taught me and some others a lot, only felt it will be a little way to honor his generous gestures and also let the world know of his existence through this wonderful platform.

Thank you for your time, and I hope to hear from you soon. McFrase (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


12:31:25, 12 January 2021 review of submission by PriyaKE


PriyaKE (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the sections the reviewer had issues with. Kindly take a look and let me know if this works for you.

15:07:49, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Simba4mseema

the draft was rejected saying submission was not supported by reliable sources. I have included a news items from The Hindu which is reputed news paper in India. I have also included wikipedia links to all the projects that confirm the users work. Please refer IMDB page as well. I am not sure what details are required. Simba4mseema (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:45, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Treuberg1


A new article on a small business was declined citing only passing information and showing no or not enough independent, secondary sources. There are very few secondary sources available for a small start up and I'm already seeing small business with huge chunks of text with no sourcing or citing their own website that have been accepted. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip%27s_Drive-in

What do I need to do to get my article accepted in this case? Treuberg1 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small businesses rarely qualify for an article in Wikipedia, particularly start-ups. There is nothing you can do as far as Wikipedia is concerned at this time. At some later time, when and if the company meets Wikipedia's requirements outlined in WP:Notability and WP:NCORP, then by definition there will have been significant coverage of the company from reliable sources where both the sources and the coverage itself is independent of the company or those seeking to "promote" it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:50, 12 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jontickner


Hello. I'm trying to complete an entry for the illustrator and author Ron Tiner, but it keeps being rejected because its sources don't provide significant enough cover. I wonder if I could request help with the sources. The subject is a very prolific comic book illustrator, who's also had his own books published (by mainstream publishers and globally available) and is mentioned in many places across the web... but often only really in listings (except for a detailed interview i've found in print). And this is my probblem.

However, his body of work is significant, as is/was his influence on others. And for this reason I believe he should be on wikipedia along with his contemporaries (who alll seem to be). My problem is that, as with many in his field, much of the work was published then destroyed, and so records are hard to come by. The listings in which he appears are important and official ones - ISBN filings, catalogues of work and so on. And for this reason I feel that an entry which mainly only lists his factual body of work could possibly be allowed.

What I'm hoping for help on is which of the sources I have provide suitable coverage, and which don't. Then i can amend the entry, slimming it down to only include the suitably verified information. Looking at entries for similar illustrators, such as Mark Buckingham (herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Buckingham_(comic_book_artist)) I can see I have more sources, and I wonder if I would be better off deleting almost all of the sources I've used, so that I only include one or two longer mentions. But this seems counter to a thorough, verified approach.

Thanks in advance for any help provided.

JOn

Jontickner (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:45, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Ajtppm


Hello, I need help understanding why FORBES is not a reliable source. And what parts of my draft article are under scrutiny - so I can delete as appropriate to get a minimum version of my draft approved. Thank you!

Ajtppm (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in this page is from a former "Forbes.com contributor" and as such is not considered a "reliable source" in the same way that articles created by staff members and are subject to "editorial oversight" are. See the entries "Forbes" and "Forbes.com contributors" at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The "list" column links to previous discussions which might answer your question in more detail. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:14, 12 January 2021 review of submission by 2607:9880:1887:FF66:2078:33CB:2AE:53DA

I made a revision. The item I want to include in wiki is one of the oldest publishing journals in gifted education. It is important for educators of this field. 2607:9880:1887:FF66:2078:33CB:2AE:53DA (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:16:04, 12 January 2021 review of draft by MurphCooper


Hi there. I'm confused why this doesn't count as significant coverage. I have seen many pages on wikipedia with fewer references. One of the references I've provided (the Guardian newspaper, which must surely be reputable enough) mentions the subject name 5 times, and another (the Independent newspaper, also reputable) mentions it 6 times. These can't be trivial mentions can they? They are forming a large part of the content if they are referred to that frequently within the sources. Thanks for any help! Edit: shortly after writing the above, I received a notification saying the page "has been reviewed". Does this mean I should resubmit it without any changes?! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MurphCooper (talk • contribs) 11:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC) MurphCooper (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:40, 12 January 2021 review of submission by Pastormikeu

I have rewritten the entire article with a more neutral tone, and am requesting input as to how the article presents itself now.Pastormikeu (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Pastormikeu (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just commented on your talk page...I fear you are wasting your time continuing to edit this draft, once a submission has been rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, it will not be considered further. The draft still reads nothing like an encyclopaedia article, I suggest you get some practice editing in other areas to get a better feel for what is acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:09, 12 January 2021 review of draft by Uri Rosenbach


Uri Rosenbach (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pls let me know how I should proceed to get this published.

Uri Rosenbach You need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button on the draft to formally submit it for review. It is possible that it will take several months, as drafts are reviewed in no particular order, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:21, 12 January 2021 review of draft by RHDavis720


RHDavis720 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to delete my draft titled Robert Michael Smith. How do I proceed?

RHDavis720 It will be automatically marked for speedy deletion after six months of inactivity. If you wish, you may add {{db-author}} to the top of the draft to request its deletion sooner. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 13

00:25:28, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Edward Acuña


Edward Acuña (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward Acuña: What are you trying to do? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:50, 13 January 2021 review of draft by Aginess mwansa


My draft as been saying that my draft does not match Wikipedia what does that mean Aginess mwansa (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:36, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Aginess mwansa

What can I do Aginess mwansa (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Tomos Roberts

Hello - I apologize, in advance, if this isn't the correct venue for asking the following question... Is there a way to determine approximately when a submitted draft may be reviewed? I was told that it could take 3+ months, however it may happen far sooner in some cases? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ryancoke2020: The review can happen well before that, however, nobody can tell for sure when, since reviewers are doing these in their (sometimes rare) free time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victor Schmidt! Much appreciated!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Request on 13:57:06, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JashonCuyler13



JashonCuyler13 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:34, 13 January 2021 review of submission by JashonCuyler13


JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 14:36:38, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JashonCuyler13



JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JashonCuyler13 There is no content there? Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:46:42, 13 January 2021 review of submission by JashonCuyler13


JashonCuyler13 (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:50:18, 13 January 2021 review of submission by PKIhistory

The company is a notable company with significant market share securing many of the transactions on the Internet and the sources are diverse, valid secondary sources that are listed. I don't know where this article falls short. Any explanation or assistance is appreciated.PKIhistory (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PKIhistory (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PKIhistory Sources that are press releases or announcements of routine business transactions do not establish that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you but none of the sources are press releases or mainly routine business transactions. They are PC Magazine, Security Week and 451 Research, and The Netcraft Independent Survey(plus many more). I have already read the article your refer to before I wrote this one. Can you take a look at the sources again - there are many and give me a clearer explanation of how they fall short. Thank you.PKIhistory (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory One reference is to "PR Newswire" which only republishes press releases. "Comodo CA becomes Sectigo and expands to cover IoT" is an announcement of a routine business transaction. Businesses expand and rename frequently. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dotThere is one but there are 19 other references that are not a press release. So if I remove the one reference and keep the other 19 it is good?PKIhistory (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. There isn't anything you can do about it at this time. I indicated what the issue was with your sources and it isn't just the two I mentioned. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dotIf there is another spot I can go to on Wikipedia to get more specific feedback and help, let me know. Thanks.PKIhistory (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory You can't forum shop until you find someone to give you the answer you want. Do you want honesty or to be lied to? I've told you specifically what the issue was. Since your draft was rejected it will not be reconsidered further. You will only be wasting your time and that of others in pursuing this further. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot No, I am not forum shopping, was actually looking for more constructive help. I am trying to be as polite as possible, but your feedback was not what I thought would come from a help desk (lets just agree to disagree there). You can take that anyway you like, but it is intended as a constructive comment to you. Lets end it here before the conversation deteriorates more. Thanks for responding.PKIhistory (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PKIhistory You are being polite, and I am trying to be polite as well. I'm sorry for giving the wrong impression. But when I answer you and then you say you want to go somewhere else for help, that seems to others like you are looking for someone to give you the answer you want. I'm happy to answer any of your questions, but I felt like I already did. Your sources were not appropriate for establishing notability, and I gave two examples(but they all seem to be inappropriate). Apologies. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:12, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Xforeverlove24

I have thoroughly edited this article after reviewing feedback, please let me know what else needs to be done/required in order to have this article become published. Thank you Xforeverlove24 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:39:36, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Hums4r


My Draft Article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zeyan_Shafiq) was rejected with the reason that i might have written less information, i am new to wikipedia and i am still learning, i have seen many other pages of the same category with less information then this. i am very confused, i'd really appreciate if someone can guide and assist me. also i know this person since he is a kashmiri as well, and i contacted him to get more information to create the article so wikipedia thinks that it might be 'COI' or isnt neutral point of view but i have written everything neutrally. i am ready to mention the same on the page as well that i know him but i don't have idea of the same on how to write it. Thanks.

Hums4r (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:26:29, 13 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sshealer


I am attempting to submit a bio for Phil Grove (American horse racing jockey) who is referenced in a few horse racing-related wiki pages. I have the material sources listed, but it appears they might not be in the proper format. I would like to get verbal help on this issue. Trying to scroll through tons of user-posted Q&As and Wiki-provided FAQs is resulting in a lot of wasted time and no progress. If someone can should me how to fix the issue, it likely is a five-minute fix. Thanks! Sshealer (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sshealer: the main ressource is WP:REFB, speficially it's WP:INTREF2 subsection. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sshealer. I've cleaned up the reference formatting for you. The remaining problem with the existing references is that Wikipedia may not be cited as a source for his two Twixt Stakes wins.
More importantly, and the main reason Draft:Phil Grove was declined, is that many statements in the draft cite no reliable published source. The entire early life section, five paragraphs of his career, and several other sentences will have to be removed if you cannot identify sources for them. Editors who know their subjects personally, such as family members or friends, often find Wikipedia's rules around verifiability exasperating, but it's the only way that an encyclopedia that anyone can edit will work. Otherwise other editors could insert anything they liked into a biography of Grove, whether it was true or not. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:44, 13 January 2021 review of draft by Meganmckwest


I'm working to fix some copyright issues on my draft page but am having trouble figuring out what was deleted. I see blank spaces with citations still linked but the headings are completely gone. Because of the copyright infringement, the history versions were deleted (which I understand why) but now I have no idea what's missing/was deleted. Is there a way to view what was deleted so I'm not having to reinvent the wheel when it comes to replacing the problematic text?

Meganmckwest (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Meganmckwest (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meganmckwest: no there is not, and a community wish on the 2020 community wishlist survey was not exactly accepted, so I am afraid that you will not see them again. If you are lucky, one of the admins on this board, may be able to tell you what has been deleted (like if it's the subject's history, something about their mission, or whatever), though they probbably won't provide the exact content. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:24, 13 January 2021 review of submission by 24.1.122.32


24.1.122.32 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This girls story is clearly the same type of propaganda as the others. I guess it will take it a few years to achieve relevance

Are you asking a question? 331dot (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:31, 13 January 2021 review of draft by LakeTravisStarsShine

Under References, there is a 8 Empty Citation (help) notation. This is a duplicate of Reference 7. I tried to delete the 8. I managed to get the citation reference wording to delete out of it, but I can't get rid of 8 Empty Citation (help). How do I do this to fix the page?

LakeTravisStarsShine (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is moot, the draft has been deleted as advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:44:32, 13 January 2021 review of submission by Sak ugur

Dear Snowycats I made a new revision. Sak ugur (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 14

03:34:49, 14 January 2021 review of draft by TechJourno


Hi. I created a stub for “Synnex Technology International Corporation” a couple of months back, and it’s been rejected. I’m new to Wikipedia and I’m having trouble understanding what I’ve done wrong. When I look at the draft there’s a reference to WP:NCOMPANY, which I think means that the company isn’t significant … even though it’s listed on the stock exchange? There’s also a note that says that the submission is blank? Any suggestions/help would be appreciated!

TechJourno (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TechJourno. In Articles for creation parlance, the draft has been declined (which allows improvement and re-submission), not rejected (which is final, not allowing re-submission). Being listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange is encouraging, but, according to the WP:LISTED section of WP:NCOMPANY, is not sufficient on its own to demonstrate notability. The draft needs several independent, reliable sources that are deeper than a listing, passing mention, or routine news. Simplywall.st doesn't have the necessary reputation for accuracy and fact checking to make it a reliable source, but that is the depth of coverage to look for - only in quality media like The South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Wall Street Journal, etc. Wikipedia already has several possibly-related poor quality articles: MiTAC, MiTAC Holdings, and MiTAC Computing Technology Corp.. You might find it easier, and more beneficial to the encyclopedia, to improve an existing article than to start a new one from scratch. The relationships among the various companies certainly needs clarification. Even if they are separate legal entities, that may not mean they are best treated in separate stand alone articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:39, 14 January 2021 review of draft by Aslan110


Hi,

I created a submission that's been declined on Jan.4 by user Curbon7 - I've asked him to give me more details on his talk page but he's not responded so far, which is why I'm seeking more advice here

I'd just like to understand why it's not admissible

1. The page is a translation from the french wikipedia, where it already exists (I also wrote the french version). Is it possible that one page is admissible in & language and not admissible in another ? https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma%C3%ABl_P%C3%A9neau

2. Some of The criterias for music composers/performers (according to the guidelines) seem to apply :

- criteria #4 : Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country

- criteria #10 : Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

- criteria #1 : Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Could you please let me know as to why these criterias are not sufficient ?

Also, I found a number of similar pages related to techno producers and DJs (some with less relevant sources than the ones I used for this page) so I'm wondering why these pages have been deemed admissible but not the one I've submitted : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Servant - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hacker - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVS1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan110 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks,


Aslan110 (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:41, 14 January 2021 review of draft by SztolpenOS


Hello, I'd like to ask you for some tips while writing an article about the company [Sunreef Yachts]. First draft was declined and I've already corrected it, but if you have any advise for me how I can improve the text I'll be grateful for that.

Additionally, how long does it take to submit the corrected article again? How many times I can correct the article? Many thanks!

SztolpenOS (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:50, 14 January 2021 review of submission by Francisjk2020

Please take a look at the revised draft. Need changes have been made, sources and citations added. All the faults points out by the reviewers have been corrrected. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:19:38, 14 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Artemenkov


Dear Wikipedia Editors, I was meaning to write a bio article for Russian Wikipedia, but in my inexperience ended submitting it to English Wikipedia, as I didn't know that the firm barriers between the two Wikipedia's exist. So it was declined for English Wikepedia and I was suggested by the editor to transfer it to the Russian Wikipedia , but I don't know how to effect this transfer, what shall I do to transfer my page with the code into the Russian Wikipedia? Thanks for assisting me!

Artemenkov (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artemenkov: is 109.248.220.245 also you? Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:51, 14 January 2021 review of submission by Darzubair

This personal is the notable football coach of All india football Federation (AIFF) and is a Professional licensed coach under Asian football federation. Help me in getting this page verified

Darzubair (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:48, 14 January 2021 review of submission by Nboni1

I have update this page with links and images to highlight the relevance to the wider wikipedia community as a star of a national TV show i believe that Liv Burt should have a page. Nboni1 (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me get this published ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chef_Liv_Burt Nboni1 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nboni1 The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. The person does not meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:52, 14 January 2021 review of submission by KentuckyGeneral2000


KentuckyGeneral2000 (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KentuckyGeneral2000 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:56, 14 January 2021 review of submission by 103.211.52.64


103.211.52.64 (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


21:34:49, 14 January 2021 review of submission by DavidPlayzYT

This movie is not publicly famous, but I do think any movie should have a wikipedia page. DavidPlayzYT (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidPlayzYT: no. Any movie shouldn't have a wikipedia page if they aren't covered significantly by published, reliable, independent media. Thank you! :) MarioJump83! 02:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:24:53, 14 January 2021 review of submission by LinneaReilly


I took out all the sales copy. I wrote a DREXSPORT article (in review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drexsport), and Wild Muscle and Wild Whey are DREXSPORT products. I simply identified them as DREXSORT protein supplements. LinneaReilly (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


22:25:47, 14 January 2021 review of draft by Austinkocher


I am attempting to submit a new page for an educational research institution here (Draft:Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC)). However, the page has been rejected twice for the reason that it does not have sufficient independent resources showing relevance. I don't understand how to correct this since I have included 20 references so far to TRAC being used by national outlets ranging from the New York Times to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. What am I missing? I would greatly appreciate any clarification you can provide.

Austinkocher (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already answered at the Teahouse. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:11, 14 January 2021 review of draft by EditorCTD


I am trying to publish a Wikipedia page for Country Travel Discoveries the company that I work for. It has not been accepted and I need help editing it so it will be accepted. EditorCTD (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

06:58:07, 15 January 2021 review of submission by The coolest lynn

because i want to know everyone that they know about their computer The coolest lynn (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The coolest lynn We already have an article about megabyte, please look at it and take note of what we expect an article to look like. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:32, 15 January 2021 review of submission by Karthik Shankar P S


Hey there, my page submission was rejected as stated - This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. I have added links of articles of the said person in magazines like Forbes. Would like to know what and how I can get this done.

Karthik Shankar P S (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of him, NOT written by him. Theroadislong (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:35, 15 January 2021 review of submission by Pishai Allan Muchauraya

why my article was declined Pishai Allan Muchauraya (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pishai Allan Muchauraya Your article was a call for investment. It is not an encyclopedia article and is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is the wrong platform. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:27, 15 January 2021 review of submission by Phoenix-anna


Phoenix-anna (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phoenix-anna/sandbox/Hexagon_Qualcomm

I received feedback that my article was too informal and a link that took me to two options: summary style and inverted pyramid style. I would like clarification on what are the issues with the style. HOw is it "informal"? Should it be converted to one of the two options - summary style or informal style? If so, which one?

This article is intended to be a replacement for the existing article on Qualcomm Hexagon

You can edit the actual article here Qualcomm Hexagon we don't "replace" articles. Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:04:04, 15 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kashmir987


I have Written article on a journalist who is famous and well known and is only Bollywood beat Journalist of Jammu and Kashmir. I have also attached links but unfortunately got rejected after submission. Kindly help


Kashmir987 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmir987: You need multiple independent sources to demonstrate notability. The few references there now all appear to be copies of the same article. There isn't anything there now that suggests the subject is notable enough. The draft has been tagged for speedy deletion (not by me). TechnoTalk (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:28, 15 January 2021 review of draft by Edward Myer


Rejection of article and constantly being solicited by reviewers that they can make my for the Draft:Bruse_Wane live if I Pay. I have be constantly contacted by editors assuming I'm the artist I have written about at the e-mail associated with my account. These editors, reviewers, gatekeeps etc on wikipedia keep telling me to pay and they can get the draft for Bruse_Wane rapper approved. It has come to my attention wikipedia is a for profit tool, and scam house for editors. People that deserve to be on here won't be added unless they pay. Wikipedia is not legitimate. It's assume that wikipedia have become one big for profit scam house. I will do my unrelenting best to let the world know about this for buy shame wikipedia has become especially when relating to Hip Hop artist article submissions.

Edward Myer (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do give the names of reviewers who have solicited you please. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Myer Wikipedia does not charge or require payment for article creation or the acceptance of a draft. Third parties might offer paid editing as a service, and solicit people with it, but that is something that they do on their own without any official sanction. Those third parties can make no guarantees(such as writing an article that will not be deleted). 331dot (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Myer, be wary of the following: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. Per Theroadislong, would you know the names of the editors who have contacted you? Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:15, 15 January 2021 review of submission by 103.211.18.38


103.211.18.38 (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was blatantly promotional in nature. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:34, 15 January 2021 review of submission by Rocleon

My article was declined. It tells it doesn't ave reliable sources. what reliable sources do I have to add. can anyone tell me that? Rocleon (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rocleon A subject merits a Wikipedia article if independent relible sources with significant coverage choose on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.(more specifically a notable company or a notable website) Reliable sources have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. "Independent" means that press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, the company website, and other primary sources, are not acceptable for establishing notability. If Ayedot is not written about by independent reliable sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every subject does, even within the same field.
Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. If you are associated with Ayedot, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:26, 15 January 2021 review of submission by Historyisnotajoke


Historyisnotajoke (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I checked wikipedia and very worst articles exist then our article, our article has proof and links so why you reject always?

WP:OSE Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historyisnotajoke (edit conflict) If there are articles "worse" than what you wrote, please point them out so they can be addressed. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about- that does not mean new inappropriate content can be permitted. Please see other stuff exists for more information. If you work for this company, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing.
Your draft has no independent reliable sources to support its content and tell why this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:09:18, 15 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jatin Vats JV



Jatin Vats JV (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:02, 15 January 2021 review of submission by Pcarlson99


Pcarlson99 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Creating a basic wiki for my friend who is a twitch streamer, please publish! Pcarlson99 (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pcarlson99 In this context, one does not "create a wiki", as a wiki is a type of entire website of which Wikipedia is one example. You attempted to create a Wikipedia article. However, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article about a person summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. I'm guessing that there is no news coverage of your friend, or books written about them, or some such. If you just want to tell the world about this person, you should use social media or some alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:50, 15 January 2021 review of submission by DanielkHartness


Hey There! My article, Draft:June Foster, was rejected because I "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)". While I was creating the article, I was really trying to follow those guidelines. To aid me, I referred to the pages of other authors, Celia Friedman and Bob Goff. I tried to model my article format off of theirs. I noticed on Friedman's page, an interview or two was cited, which lead me to linking to several different ones for June Foster. She's given near a dozen. Would those not be considered independent? I figured those might be considered objective coverage and unbiased in a sense. I also gave little biographical info, just trying to stick with her career, what she's known for, so it would be as objective as possible. I'm really not sure what other sources to use. I linked to sites showing her awards, books, and interviews, so I don't know exactly what I need. I felt like this article was similar enough to Celia Friedman and shows that she's an author with multiple books. Could you guys help me? I know I'm new, but I really want to contribute. I thought I found a good way with an author of several books. What source am I missing?

I was also able to find a link to her publisher, Winged Publications, would that help too?

Thanks so much and for the very quick review!

DanielkHartness (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielkHartness: Sorry your submission was rejected. It can be frustrating, but the issue is that the sourcing is poor, and doesn't establish the author's notability. There are a lot of other poor articles that were written when the standards were not as stringent for submission. There's an essay about this WP:OTHERSTUFF. Interviews are not considered reliable sources but they can show notability if they are notable publications. What you need are profiles of the author in independent sources, which can be used to create the biography. If you can add them, you're on your way to showing notability. If there aren't any, it's harder to show she deserves an article. Also, it's not going to change the need for proper sourcing, but you don't want to add inline external links to Amazon for all her books. See WP:EL. It becomes a spam opportunity, and gives the impression that you are trying to market her books. You want to instead source the books with coverage such as reviews in independent sources. Good luck. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: Ok thanks for the help. I've found several bios I'll use as references instead and resubmit it! I added the publisher's bio of her too, and will fix the links for the books. Could I link the books to Google books instead? Or do I need a independent review of each one?

January 16

10:03:09, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Hit1985


Hit1985 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:33:08, 16 January 2021 review of submission by 192.142.218.222

tell me the problems

192.142.218.222 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft only tells of the existence of the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:34, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Ahmad Abazeed school

just don't.

Ahmad Abazeed school (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your user talk page, Wikipedia is free storage space. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:39, 16 January 2021 review of draft by Taiwania Justo

This article is done by adding the related sources. Please check again, thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 13:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:16:58, 16 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 73.254.183.116


Hello! I received feedback that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M._Riad_El-Ghonemy is not acceptable. The reasons cited were not helpful, and I am reaching out here to get more specifics. I found the feedback generic and vague, and I am sure there is a lot of subjectivity in this discussion on what is 'significant' coverage and what is a 'reliable source' or 'The article needs independent sources: i.e. sources other than the subject's own works' -- that is where I need some help.

The article refers to multiple publications that are not by the subject, not published by the subject, and are reliable sources themselves. In addition the subject has written multiple published works with proven track records of applicability and which are referenced in the article. I am puzzled why the reviewer left this feedback, and could use some guidance beyond what is in the Talk page entry that I reviewed carefully for more specific examples of where the article references fell short.

Thanks for any guidance on this. Examples of similar individuals' biographical pages, particularly thought leaders who worked at the boundary of Non Governmental Organizations (e.g., UNDP) and academia, to help me see an example or precedent of an 'acceptable to Wikipedia' article.

I do see that the works cited are all by the subject -- if that is the chief issue, I will go look for other sources, however it is challenging some times to find that when the subject itself is a prodigious thinker or prolific author, as we depend on someone **else** writing about the subject, which biases against mavericks and thought leaders who may not have had that kind of coverage in their lifetimes.

73.254.183.116 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:24, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Merabharatdesh


Merabharatdesh (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:21, 16 January 2021 review of submission by MattBiomathews


Can you please explain what notable is? what is required? I have been featured in news articles, podcasts, magazines, and TV. along with 12,000 followers on Facebook and 44,000 followers on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/matt_mathews/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/MattMathewsPhotos

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/author-matt-mathews-on-how-to-learn-to-finally-love-yourself-dfe58a0835fb https://homebusinessmag.com/success-stories-lifestyles/tragedy-triumph-self-love-matt-mathews-beauty-boudoir/ https://mylalifestyle.com/treat-yourself-dont-cheat-yourself-self-care-secrets-from-matt-mathews/ https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/real-talk-with/episode-1-hot-mess-express-HmUxt1B8KDb/ https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/birmingham-boudoir-photographer-reveals-all-in-autobiography/ https://www.photographersedit.com/blog/boudoir-style/ https://blog.stickymarketingtools.com/matt-mathews-specializing-marketing-increasing-your-sales/ https://larousseshoppe.com/blogs/packaging-branding-inspiration/90571334-featured-photographer-matt-mathews

MattBiomathews (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your autobiographical draft had zero sources, the number of Facebook and Instagram followers has no bearing on notability likewise mentions in blogs which are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No worries, just my way through. I do have an autobiography book, but it's not publicly published.(https://www.amazon.com/Uncovered-Naked-Truth-Life-Addiction/dp/0359802583/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=matt+mathews&qid=1610837203&sr=8-1) Viewers purchase the book to read. Would this book be a reliable source? How would you reference a book that is not a free public source? I would have thought magazine articles would have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBiomathews (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your own book about yourself would not be an independent source, so no use whatsoever for establishing any notability, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:38, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Melvinblair


Melvinblair (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


22:32:09, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Melvinblair


Melvinblair (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:36, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Safmc

Hello, I have a question regarding article formatting. I am wondering if the article I submitted, Draft:Sophia Jensen, should not contain subtitles rather than containing one large paragraph. Considering that the article is a stub, is it acceptable to not divide it into multiple different sections? Thank you so much for any feeback! Safmc (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

08:13:10, 17 January 2021 review of draft by Damola33


My submission made 2 months ago hasn't been attended too by anyone.

Damola33 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:04, 17 January 2021 review of submission by Midnight713

Thank you Padavalamkuttanpilla for the feedback. I am surprised that the references were deemed as not significant coverage. I can include more references if necessary. I imagined that the National Ballet company of a sovereign country would be worthy of a Wiki entry but am open to correction and can delete if references are not sufficient. Midnight713 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Midnight713 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered at the Teahouse. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:16:37, 17 January 2021 review of draft by Innovatao


I'm attempting to get this past initial draft, it was requested I put the page together, and as far as I can tell it has all of the reference and reference types requested by Wikipedia. However the notes I receive back only say they need more, but everything I can get hold of is on there. They are not an actress, they are an entrepreneur working for LQBTQ+ causes. I have had the page moved, mistaken for the fictional character, but nothing actually definitive. Could you please assist as I must be missing something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naomi_Bennett_(entrepreneur)

Innovatao (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1000985590"