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 MyHelp1 (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 30 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, 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


January 24

04:42:58, 24 January 2021 review of submission by Kkmal.Hamouda

My article was waiting and is expected to be accepted. No contrary to the wikipedia purposes. It does satisfy all 4 purposes and is open for editing by public by using (Edit semi-protected) . Someone tried to hide my article by redirecting, his name #TakuyaMurata and not acceptable not to find it. I request finalizing the acceptance of my article. My article is accepted for waiting of 3+ months. Please for any editing use (Edit semi-protected). This is open to public and all. Thanks Kkmal.Hamouda (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kkmal.Hamouda (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkmal.Hamouda: You've added duplicate, messy requests here, which have created need for cleanup. See these three edits, which resulted in a blank heading at top, and then, basically, a repeated comment at the bottom of what you were trying to articulate in the middle. Note the FOUR signatures you added? Also, it's unclear to me what exactly you're complaining about. If you're talking about this edit from 12 January 2021, that was reverted, so it's not clear what your problem is. Also, is there a reason why you've used two different user accounts to edit this article? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kkmal.Hamouda: your draft reads like a how-to guide, as if you've tried to draft a page from a high-school calc textbook. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, and that's what makes your draft contrary to Wikipedia's purpose (which is to be an encyclopedia). Since it has been rejected, it is not going to be accepted. You might find such content at WikiHow or even on Wikibooks but obviously both of those projects have their own quality standards that you'd need to adhere to (and obviously wouldn't accept something like a by-line on a Wiki page). --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:43, 24 January 2021 review of submission by 60.229.148.166

Because it is notable enough. Trust me. 60.229.148.166 (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question, but we don't rely on editors' assertions. We only care what reliable secondary sources would say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:55:06, 24 January 2021 review of submission by Aban0001

(UTC)

This is my first wikipedia article and I wrote about someone whose writing I have been following for some time. However, it has been declined twice, inspite of providing very credible links etc. The reason ascribed is that it does not meet notability guidelines. However, I see that there are wiki pages for far less notable people ( see Mathures Paul or Tarapada Basu), and I am not really sure of what is needed to meet wiki's notability guidelines - the subject of this article is a published author and a senior journalist. Can you advise how this article can be improved to the same standards as applied for Mathures Paul or Tarapada Basu, please? I am unable to consider further articles until I clearly understand what is needed, so your help will be appreciated.

Aban0001 (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aban0001: Welcome to Wikipedia! The draft you submitted does not show WP:SIGCOV in the references, which is required to meet WP:NBIO. None of the sources linked talk about the subject in depth. The draft also fails WP:MINREF. Looking at other articles as examples of why your article should be included is a bad argument (explained at WP:WAX), but I will do my best to answer. Tarapada Basu has received the Padma Shiri, which is a major accomplishment and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO point 1. While this does not guarantee notability, it provides a strong argument for why the article should exist. In the case of Mathures Paul, the article was started over a decade ago when notability guidelines were not enforced as well as they are today. The article has a banner at the top noting that the subject may not be notable. If you feel the subject is not notable, you could start a deletion discussion at WP:AFD. I also wanted to note and get your response on the fact that other editors have identified you as a possible undisclosed paid editor, which is a conflict of interest. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for more information. Please WP:PING me if you reply here. AviationFreak💬 07:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:AviationFreak Thanks for the comprehensive response. I am assuming that being the first Indian Female Konrad Adeneur Fellow, or being recognised as Emerging Leader in Asian Journalism by KAS, or being the Editor / Head of digital media of an international news portal does not qualify for notability parameters. Noted, thanks Aban0001 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:08, 24 January 2021 review of submission by Ajjj11

I have been trying to get this page online but every time I am not able to do it. Please review the article and help me taking it public. The person mentioned in the article has been contributing his bit to the film industry, having worked for more than a decade and 20 plus films. Having mentioned all the sufficient references still the article keeps declining. Please review it and help me know what stuff is missing in the article. Ajjj11 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait for it to be reviewed. You've been declined only once, and you just submitted it for a second time eight minutes ago. Posting here will not speed up the process. Pahunkat (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined for a third time, with a warning that continued submission without radical improvement will be treated as tendentious editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:52, 24 January 2021 review of submission by Jackignore

Hello guys, I am new to wikipedia. I don't know why this article rejected. Can you please help me? Thanks. Is there a way to make it eligible? Jackignore (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jackignore The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As noted on your draft, it appears that the person does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know but Hackernoon is a news website and it's also in wikipedia and google news. How can I make that article notable?Jackignore (talk) 08:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackignore:. The nature of Hackernoon, and whether it is in Wikipedia or is indexed by Google News is irrelevant. The cited Hackernoon pages were written by Nima Owji. Nothing written by him can demonstrate that he is notable. The draft has been rejected because no amount of editing can make the topic acceptable. Therefore volunteers do not intend to review it again. Move on to a different topic, or consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jackignore, Hackermoon may be notable but notability is not inherited. JavaHurricane 15:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:54, 24 January 2021 review of submission by Ishan3011


Ishan3011 (talk) 16:39, 24 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) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:43:23, 24 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Harriett Type


I want my deleted wiki page to be reinstated so that I can fix it according to the feedback that I received from the reviewer. I understand the comments and will fix the content.

Harriett Type (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An unambiguous copyright infringement is unlikely to be reinstated. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can safely say it is more than unlikely, the chances are close to zero. You can't "fix" a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:10, 24 January 2021 review of submission by 79.97.141.188

The content of this submission is verifiably factual, and undisputed 79.97.141.188 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But rejected many times as not notable evidently. Theroadislong (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:46, 24 January 2021 review of submission by LeGoldenBoots


LeGoldenBoots (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The subject's own website and LinkedIn do not count a whit for notability as Wikipedia defines the term. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 23:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know and I didn't write his LinkedIn and Website as a refrence. I only refrenced Hackernooon. It's on Wikipedia too!Jackignore (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

01:23:52, 25 January 2021 review of draft by John T Ghillie


Subject is the foremost authority as author and instructor on tactical Firefighting and the books published assist Firefighters globally. His co-worker/author Shan Raffel has Wikipedia page, so can't understand as Author of three textbooks in field and previous expertise, lecturing at international conferences etc that subject is not notable? Can you advise? Would shorter article focusing on as textbook author satisfy criteria more easily?


John T Ghillie (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your citations are not properly done. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to cite sources in Wikipedia, and WP:Biographies of living persons for why we are insistent on sourcing this article properly. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:54:53, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Kemmiiii


Kemmiiii (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I am requesting another review because the subject meets the notability criiteria both generally and for an actor. Also the fact that her fellow housemates on [brother naija]; [[1]] and [[2]] also have Wiki pages despite being more popular and more accomplished than they are. --Kemmiiii (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kemmiiii: You make this assertion rather confidently, but if I were to start going through the article and deleting content supported by weak references, such as blogs and user-generated sites like IMDB, I think most sources and content would be deleted. Her birthplace is attributed to IMDb, so that fails WP:UGC and is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY. Her schooling is attributed to the school she attended, which fails WP:BLPPRIMARY. The random YouTube links I've clicked on in the article are not from verified channels, so they could be copyright violations. So I'm struggling to see where any of the remainders are from major mainstream sources, or how any of them are all reliable, independent and talk about the subject in significant detail. Anyway, I'm not asking you any questions, I'm just trying to explain the likely reasons why it was rejected. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. These points are noted and will be rectified. Kemmiiii (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:31:28, 25 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Harish139


Hi, hope you are doing good. I have been working on an article titled 'Chandramouli Gaddamanugu', who is the project director for Akash Missle. But, the article is getting rejected the reviewers multiple times stating that the references are not sufficient. My point here is that he is a project director for Akash missile for which Wikipedia page is already there. In that case, I think he is also eligible to get a Wikipedia page. WHen it comes to the references, I have already provided sufficient references to support my copy. Please hep me out with this issue. Thanks.

Harish139 (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Harish139: Hello! The reason that your submission has been repeatedly declined is that its references do not show significant coverage of the subject. Notability is generally not inherited, meaning that a subject is not notable purely because of their affiliation with something notable (in this case, the Akash missile). If you have questions, please WP:PING me here or reply on my talk page. AviationFreak💬 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:39:25, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Sheichey


Sheichey (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider the edited content. I deleted the advertisement part of the content. Please let me know if I have more items to delete or revise.

@Sheichey: This article would need to be essentially rewritten to properly contain a neutral point of view. Even if it were rewritten, the sources currently in the article do not show notability. Most are advertisements, and the last one is a self-published source. AviationFreak💬 04:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:57:52, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Sheichey


Sheichey (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the content with notable Parent Company reference and an article from Property Report PH that we are a housing brand.

Sheichey Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about something. Wikipedia summarizes 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. Press releases, announcement of routine business, brief mentions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article.
You will need to read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies and make the required declarations. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:19, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Imonboss


Imonboss (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:45:09, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Risa Kuribayashi

Please let me know the reason why my article has been rejected and what should I do for improvement. Thank you.

Risa Kuribayashi (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risa Kuribayashi. The reasons the draft has been declined are contained within the large pink boxes at the top of the draft, and the policies and guidelines to which they link. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites no sources. Help:Referencing for beginners may assist you if the problem is simply that you don't understand how to cite sources, but nothing written in the draft suggests Yanagi has accomplished anything that would make him suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:47, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Ritikr019

Please let me know the reason why my article has been rejected and what should I do for improvement? 

Thank you.

Ritikr019 (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritikr019. The reasons the draft has been declined are contained within the large pink boxes at the top of the draft, and the policies and guidelines to which they link. YouTube and Facebook are generally unreliable sources. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites none. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Ritikr019, it seems you have written an autobiography. Please note that Wikipedia discourages autobiographies primarily as Wikipedia articles must be neutral in tone. Additionally, do note that Wikipedia is none of the following: a platform for promotion or advertising, a social network like LinkedIn, a web host. I hope you can understand why the draft was declined. JavaHurricane 15:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:36, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Conifigueroa


My article was declined by Sulfurboy saying "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you."

But i don't fully understand what should i fix, i have 11 footnotes with references. What is wrong specifically? I'm new on wikipedia, actually this is my first article

i hope you can help me!

Thank You!!

Conifigueroa (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Conifigueroa: The minimum standard for inline citations is laid out at WP:MINREF. Basically, most claims need a citation so that readers can easily identify the source of a piece of info. Information on this draft requiring inline citations would include the first paragraph and last sentence of "Early life," citations for each point in "Education," his lead roles, etc. However, as other reviewers have noted, you have provided no indication that this subject meets WP:NMUSICIAN. To respond, please WP:PING me here or reply on my talk page. AviationFreak💬 15:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:27, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Vagabond-PRVienna

Not sure if the draft will finally be reviewed. I made the draft: Lüftner Cruises several days ago but I am not sure if it was "correct". I found out, that i have to add some sort of code, but I am still not sure if it is listed now or again not. I also don't know where I can look it up or where I can find the status or even in which position the draft is. Is there any possibility to check all the information regulary and to find out when or even if the article can be published? Vagabond-PRVienna (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vagabond-PRVienna Before you worry about that, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing, and make the required declaration.
You may resubmit it by clicking the "resubmit" button in the notice at the top of the draft, but it will be rejected again unless you address the concerns. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:01, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Powell Roy


Powell Roy (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have written genuinely on my progress as an amateur travel blogger in Malaysia with appropriate resources. My work has been noted by many local travel bloggerd/ companies. Please consider to post information on my travel blog.

Powell Roy Wikipedia is not for you to tell the world about your blog. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources say about you blog on their own, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notable web content. If it is notable, ideally you shouldn't be the one to write about it due to your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay understood. Could have replied in a polite manner. Will take into account of the feedback given. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powell Roy (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:32, 25 January 2021 review of draft by Emremer


Emremer (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emremer: Do you have a question? An editor independent of me already determined that the draft is the original source, and I added {{backwards copy}} to the draft talkpage so others can see it. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:23, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Harshit603


Harshit603 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harshit Agrawal (Born 29 October 2002) is a student and Indian politician. A member of NSUI.

Biography Born in Bhayandar, Maharashtra. He spent his early childhood between Mumbai, Maharashtra and Guna, Madhya Pradesh and stayed away from the public sphere for much of his childhood and early youth. He attained primary education in Jaipur, Rajasthan and Silvassa, Dadra Nagar Haveli. He began his undergraduate career at University of Mumbai.

References www.instagram.com/_real.photographer_

www.twitter.com/nsuiHarshit

and therein lies the problem zero reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:31, 25 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

Hello, I recently received advice on here as to how to make the draft of JumpCloud better & more likely to be published. I implemented all of the edits recommended which includes the following: Removed marketing text, removed spaces between the punctuation and the references, changed section titles to sentence case, removed funding info in the lead section, put a history section first with items in chronological order, made sure everything is properly sourced, got rid of anything that says PR or Newswire and removed the entire recognition section. I'd love to get this draft approved, let me know if there is anything I can do to increase my chances. Thank you!


Barouy13 (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 26

01:09:06, 26 January 2021 review of submission by Ringsidemd1961


Ringsidemd1961 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all the corrections, additions and edits requested. In addition, the draft was also just edited again by a reviewer and additional changes were made. Can you please tell me what other changes need to be made prior to the draft being eligible for a permanent article? This is my first attempt at creating, so any advice is appreciated. Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Harold_Lloyd_Schwartz&oldid=1002084799

02:34:13, 26 January 2021 review of submission by 2601:586:C401:660:5566:E251:8B9A:9F1F


2601:586:C401:660:5566:E251:8B9A:9F1F (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Can I please fix the issues and submit it again. The old articles that were didn't have the sources, that's why they were deleted. This new article has good sources.[reply]

04:34:48, 26 January 2021 review of draft by Jayjay2020



I was hoping to publish the drafts for Draft:Rosanna Roces and Draft:List of 2021 PBA season transactions because I putted available and verified informations and sources for these two drafts. Jayjay2020 (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:33, 26 January 2021 review of draft by Lochan123


Lochan123 (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:21, 26 January 2021 review of submission by Graceinbusiness

I have included Michelle's experience in dealing with trolls and negative accusations in regards to fraudulent activity. Graceinbusiness (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graceinbusiness The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:46:48, 26 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Primoeditio


Hello, may I ask for some help of he community. I am trying to publish my first article and it has issues with referencing. Most of my sources rely on online publications (due to the spesifics of the subject). The last comment I received was this: " Comment: Please make changes to this article, make sure the content is relevant to references provided, remove unsource sentence An@ss_koko(speak up) 04:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)" First question - how can I see which particular sentence needs reference, so I can delede it or add reference? Second question - could you please elaborate more on the part, where it says that the content must be relevant to the reference. To my subjective point of view the content is supported by references well. Let me know if I need to add more reference sources or shift the focus... I am a bit puzzled now, so would be extremely helpful for any explanations. Sincerely, Me

Primoeditio (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the first question, if it makes a claim of any sort of significance, it requires a source. Answering the second question, if the source proffered doesn't actually corroborate what the portion of article it's being used on says, then the source isn't relevant to the reference. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:22, 26 January 2021 review of submission by Shanisun

Hi, I corrected all was asked and this is an article about a public company with a FDA approval so i dont understand why it gets rejected after correcting everything. also there are other similar conpanies on wiki. Please help me and im willing to learn what else needs an edit. Shanisun (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. Being a public company with FDA approval is not part of the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see other stuff exists. 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, and the presence of other inappropriate articles does not mean yours can exist too. That competitors merit articles does not necessarily mean this company does too. If you'd care to help us out, feel free to point out some of these other articles you've seen so they can be addressed. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:18:54, 26 January 2021 review of draft by Khan Ahsan 1


I want to make my tv director page approved i.e "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atif_Khan_(Director) " but some wiki user denied because of sources and i am not able to find out what was wrong in my references . I am his cousin brother and wanted to know how can i make his page .

Khan Ahsan 1 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Ahsan 1 You have offered almost no independent reliable sources about this person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. IMDB is also not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:24, 26 January 2021 review of draft by Khan Ahsan 1


I want to make my tv director page approved i.e "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Atif_Khan_(Director) " but some wiki user denied because of sources and i am not able to find out what was wrong in my references . I am his cousin brother and wanted to know how can i make his page .

Khan Ahsan 1 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is never a reliable source and your other sources are not much better, also see WP:COI. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:42, 26 January 2021 review of draft by Jonathankuo11


I have removed the external links in the article body. There are external links to work in the Bibliography section; should I remove those as well? (On a similar note: the article titles and dois within the bibliography have the same url links. Is this redundant?)

Jonathankuo11 (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathankuo11: Per WP:ELNO #15, I have removed the book URLs. I am not particularly familiar with the preferred formatting for journal citations, but {{Cite journal}} isn't specific on the matter so it probably isn't a big issue. Good work on the draft, I just want to make sure you are aware of all the guidelines at WP:COI and WP:PAID. I see you've already declared on your userpage and the talkpage, so I imagine you are already familiar. If you have any other questions, please let me know at my talk page. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 20:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:43, 26 January 2021 review of submission by 2409:4072:210:FCA9:D710:2D03:487:D5E8


2409:4072:210:FCA9:D710:2D03:487:D5E8 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It is too conversational in tone and overly detailed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:57:09, 26 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Tallgrassnative


Can someone help me pinpoint what's preventing the Green Dot Bioplastics article from being approved? The generic reasons are that it reads like an advertisement but I can't figure out what else to cut/edit. I've looked at articles for other companies in the industry and I'm not seeing the difference between what's approved for them but rejected for this one.

Tallgrassnative (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tallgrassnative. Cleaning up the advertising tone would be a waste of time. The company isn't notable, so it wouldn't be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia anyway. There is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability, and that (and company sources) is what the draft mainly depends on.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or has been "approved". It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:39:42, 26 January 2021 review of draft by SamProsser


SamProsser (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm working on an author's page as she's been getting interest, more publications and roles in conferences. I added website links as verification for each statement I made but the article was denied. I don't know what else I'm meant to do. Can someone help?

The response was for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_Leamy

Thanks, SamP

We do not permit external links in the body of the text; you need to properly cite your sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

01:16:27, 27 January 2021 review of submission by Oceanus912


A big instagram account with posts that have been liked by celebrities should be notable :(

Oceanus912 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanus912: The applicable guidelines here would be WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. The draft's sourcing does not indicate notability by either of these guidelines (Instagram is not a reliable source). AviationFreak💬 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:13:34, 27 January 2021 review of submission by HAshagreY

I have restructured the article according to wikipedia criteria. I would like it to be reviewed and published. HAshagreY (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAshagreY, I have to agree with the rejection, every single source appears to be related to the subject or self-published in some way, there is no independent coverage which is required to show that the subject is notable, this would still be declined. Dylsss(talk contribs) 03:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:28:42, 27 January 2021 review of draft by CAOneto


- A page I submitted for review from my Sandbox was rejected siting "not valid sources." -- If many (most) of the sources linked were Wikipedia pages, what is more 'validating' proof needed than another Wikipedia page {that has been APPROVED!}? This is my 2nd time submitting this page and I've added several links, and so it is getting a bit frustrating. Thank you!

CAOneto (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CAOneto, IMDb and Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources because anyone anyone can edit it, social media is rarely a reliable sources as well because it is self-published, you should also convert embedded links to citations so that it is clear what source is supporting which statements. The article should summarise what reliable sources say to show that the subject is notable. Links to social media, user generated sites, and personal websites do not show notabiltiy on their own. Dylsss(talk contribs) 03:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:52:46, 27 January 2021 review of submission by Chrissy Will


Hi I've cleaned up and updated this page with more TV and film roles. Chrissy Will (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:04, 27 January 2021 review of submission by Chouhan777


sanju (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need sources for each of the article's unreferenced claims. India Forums does not appear to be an acceptable source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chouhan777: Most casting directors seem unlikely to be notable, as they typically work behind the scenes. A person writing an article about a casting director would have to demonstrate that they met the General Notability Guideline, which seems somewhat unlikely for a casting director. That said, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, Sanju. That's not terribly classy, and it's also a conflict of interest. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:35, 27 January 2021 review of draft by Giuseppe Ardolino


Hi, I received the review result (declined) of my draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sadas), and I kindly ask for some details on what I need to change, what's part of the text unneutral and references to modify. I previously already asked for feedback (18 January 2021) but I didn't receive it. For any kind of information, I am totally available. Really thanks so much for your availability  Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:37, 27 January 2021 review of submission by 41.190.31.146


41.190.31.146 (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:57, 27 January 2021 review of submission by Monir1975

Added below three citation: https://venturebeat.com/2021/01/11/zyter-unveils-smart-hospitals-a-5g-ready-medical-data-and-iot-system/#/ https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/918315238/more-companies-are-using-technology-to-monitor-for-coronavirus-in-the-workplace https://www.techrepublic.com/article/new-smart-hospital-platform-could-be-the-digital-transformation-tool-healthcare-needs/ So wanted to know above are acceptable in terms of notability? Monir1975 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:02, 27 January 2021 review of submission by Hope samantha

This article has many neutral sources and has statistic details over a 100+ year old company that is well established. I'm not sure what else I can do to get this published. Please help.

Hope samantha (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


22:12:05, 27 January 2021 review of draft by 174.3.212.76


I do not know how to reference. 174.3.212.76 (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to fix my draft; Draft: The Secret Of Skinwalker Ranch. please and thankyou. 174.3.212.76 (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken away many links to 1-topic details. I have 2 references. the information is all there; why is this not accepted? 174.3.212.76 (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

06:23:38, 28 January 2021 review of draft by CastellamareAsh


Can I intentionally use some of the same references as in other articles? There is an overlap of information between my Fasting Hypoglycemia Draft and some existing articles such as Hypoglycemia. I will be finding and adding academic references and information myself for that which is unique to the subject of fasting hypoglycemia, however I am wondering if it would be inappropriate to use existing articles as a shortcut to find some references. CastellamareAsh (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC) CastellamareAsh (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CastellamareAsh. There's nothing wrong with using Wikipedia for ideas about possible sources. You may even copy text from Wikipedia articles, so long as you follow the rules about attribution. Just bear in mind that since anyone can edit the encyclopedia, you cannot assume that everything cited here is reliable, that it is accurately paraphrased, or that it fairly and proportionately represents all significant views on the topic. It's your responsibility to consult the source yourself (not some derivative of it), evaluate its reliability, and make a good faith effort to follow the neutral point of view policy (which might require also searching outside of Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:50, 28 January 2021 review of draft by Boxmode


Hi all!

My name is Max, I found an old version of our Draft: Boxmode, which was rejected by editor Jen (Calliopejen1) on July 7, 2020. Apparently, earlier one of my colleagues tried to post information about our project on Wikipedia, but the publication was rejected because did not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

I am completely updated the information on the page. Expanded the "History" and others sections, added links to publications from independent media about our product.

After that, I once again submitted the publication by clicking the "Resubmit" button. And I wrote about it in Talk Calliopejen1.

What else do I need to do to get the publication approved? Please help me figure it out, this is the first time I am submitting a publication to Wikipedia :) Boxmode (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boxmonde You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia that summarizes 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. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself or what it considers to be its own history. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:12, 28 January 2021 review of submission by Thaeon


Thaeon (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thaeon I have linked to the draft instead of providing a copy, which transferred formatting inappropriate for this page here. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted this elsewhere; please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. You have submitted it for review and it is pending; the last reviewer claimed that your draft is a hoax. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing to suggest a hoax, as SL93 asserts with vague evidence. Much of the text is supported by a scholarly source, the second most cited in the draft: Joseph S. Alter (1992). The Wrestler's Body: Identity and Ideology in North India. University of California Press. p. 233. ISBN 0-520-07697-4. Indeed, much of the text is too closely paraphrased from that source, so much so that I'm surprised it wasn't declined as a copyright violation. Alter translated a biography from a Hindi-language sports magazine, and notes that its literary style was designed "to evoke an image of greatness". Wikipedia isn't intended to be laudatory, so the tone of the copied text is more essay-like than the formal, neutral tone appropriate for an encyclopedia, another reason to decline the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce The biggest issues right now is that Thaeon has personally attacked me in multiple places and has forum-shopped this in multiple places. I woke up just now to insults. SL93 (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SL93 I'm sorry to hear that. Your comrades on the Afc rock pile appreciate your reviewing, even if the occasional submitter does not. I try to look at such newbie missteps as an opportunity for them to learn about civility and forum shopping. With only two mainspace edits, they are unlikely to have encountered those concepts in the Wikipedia context (although one might hope they are familiar with them in real life). --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce Thanks. My mistake for declining the article was an honest mistake. The sources said "Mahadev Mishra" and now I know it's just another spelling of the wrestler's name. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:29, 28 January 2021 review of draft by Ilka Dorchester


The article I submitted was declined by one member review, after verifying that the information I presented is equal/similar to various other articles with less important "current issues" such as women & girls in education, I request to have a secondary review of my article since this article represents the courage of a young teacher claiming the rights to education for women and girls, and once again this is an article of relevance historical importance to have a place in history for the lady "Alice Faucon" presented in my article. Please have a second review. Many thanks for your cooperation, and understanding of the human rights importance of my article. Ilka Dorchester Ilka Dorchester (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ilka Dorchester You have submitted it for review, and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:11:35, 28 January 2021 review of draft by Silas9091


I am a bit at a loss how to submit the page « Saade family » for review and approval. Can you tell how to proceed? Thanks

Silas9091 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Silas9091 You click the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Second Opinion

20:47:20, 28 January 2021 review of draft by SinghalA


SinghalA (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:31:56, 28 January 2021 review of submission by Coleb0608

I feel many people would be interested in the information available in this draft. The issues addressed are all local, so the person who reviewed it may not have understood. Please consider that this is a local piece. Coleb0608 (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Local pieces are not suitable for Wikipedia. We are not social media. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 29

01:05:12, 29 January 2021 review of submission by Redbettie7

Wondering any specific edits that can be made to my draft. Is there anything that stands out within the article that is keeping it from being approved? What makes it seem like a test edit and not worthy for inclusion? Redbettie7 (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redbettie7. If you're asking about Draft:The Rogue Initiative, you've made your question difficult to answer by deleting the draft. That means most people can't see it anymore to evaluate it. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult, frustrating, and time consuming tasks a novice editor can undertake, and is vastly overrated. If you were trying to write about an extant business, the best advice is don't. Not, at least, until you have much more experience with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's much easier and more useful to start by improving existing articles. We have over six million to choose from. See Wikipedia:Task Center for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:04, 29 January 2021 review of submission by Sky445


Hello everyone, I need your support regarding this submission, I noticed that this composer page keeps getting rejected even though he is one of the most reputable singers and composers in the middle east. Please advise why it is being rejected and how we can succeed in publishing a page about him.

Sky445 (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon and Allmusic are not reliable sources, the Billboard link doesn't go anywhere and the topic fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:22, 29 January 2021 review of submission by Nargizyl

I cannot see the reason why this page is not being approved. I am neither being paid nor an employee. I just want to share some info about local company. Could someone please help? Nargizyl (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, you removing that rejection doesn't alter the fact, the draft will not be re-considered. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:09, 29 January 2021 review of draft by Apos gk


Hi, i want to make a page about a director but my submission is rejected. Can anyone help me?

Apos gk (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apos gk It was only declined, not rejected. You have resubmitted it. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:07, 29 January 2021 review of submission by Vikulgupta17031986

Hi I have updated my whole page, Can you please review now. Vikulgupta17031986 (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikulgupta17031986 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:18, 29 January 2021 review of submission by Mochgamen1


Mochgamen1 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mochgamen1 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that the band does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:47, 29 January 2021 review of submission by Sean Solie

My article was denied back in November due to a lack of credible sourcing. Since, I have submitted multiple requests to Wiki with no response. All of the sources that I used, aside from one, are news sources and I am having a hard time understanding without further direction what I can do to better source my article considering I referenced the most credible sources I can find. Are the mentions of Sean McCoshen's financial contributions the issue at hand? If I were to drop the dollar amounts and just list the entities, with the articles sourced, would that work? I have gone over the various tools in Wiki on sourcing and I'm not identifying anything that speaks to this.

Please advise.

Sean Solie (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Solie An issue is that the coverage barely mentions the subject or doesn't mention him at all. Also, large chunks of text have no citations. SL93 (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:53:20, 29 January 2021 review of draft by JBWPpw


Hello - I submitted a revision of this draft in November and it has been listed as submitted and awaiting review. Since no action has been taken I was wondering if I should do anything further at this point?

Thanks!

JBWPpw (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:10, 29 January 2021 review of submission by 104.4.164.242

I don't see a yellow box, re: "If you see a yellow box saying "Review waiting, please be patient", you have successfully submitted your draft for review." Please advise.

104.4.164.242 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it for you. SL93 (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

Request on 03:00:50, 30 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MyHelp1



MyHelp1 (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1003670673"