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 Lovemyfamilybut? (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 3 February 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 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]

Hi, I have put the article in my sandbox. Wondering if someone can help me with these questions previously asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbettie7 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 February 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]

JBWPpw, there is always value in continuing to improve the draft Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 30 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]

03:02:22, 30 January 2021 review of submission by Socialmates


Socialmates (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


03:16:45, 30 January 2021 review of draft by Blakedes2

My artice on the Christmas Mountain Caldera Complex is mostly from 2 Sources. Which are both Cited and referenced. I would like to Submit for confirmation please. Please let me know if i need to change anything

Blakedes2 (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blakedes2 As noted by the reviewer, a few more sources would probably be the best thing you could do before resubmitting. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:27:45, 30 January 2021 review of submission by Wattdan


Wattdan (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please what should I do to publish the page again

Wattdan The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. It appears that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, and that the draft is largely promotional in nature. To be frank, it will only waste your time and that of others if you pursue this further at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:01:28, 30 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by KambizShekdar


Please take a look at my submission, which is a new Wiki page for Research Foundation to Cure AIDS, an IRS-certified 501(c)3 not-for-profit in the United States. I created the page to raise awareness of the existence of the organization and its work, which has garnered published support from U.S. Presidential Candidates to the largest public event in NYC and which is described in multiple publications about the organization, including an article in Undark Magazine, a thoroughly fact-checked publication offered by MIT that covers science for the general public. Despite these and many other significant citations that support the information on the page, a reviewer simply deleted the page based on a single reviewer's comments suggesting that the page was not supported, and where that reviewer is active in the same general field as the organization. I would appreciate additional review by others to ensure an unbiased review in this case. Thank you very much.


KambizShekdar (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KambizShekdar You have submitted it for review and it is pending. Note that prior reviews must remain; the reviewer did not delete the draft or even blank it. Also please note that "raise awareness of the organization and its work" is considered a promotional purpose on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only concerned with if the organization is shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I don't know if it will be accepted, but it currently reads as a promotional piece for the organization and its work and not just a summary of independent reliable sources. Non-profits are treated no differently than for-profits in this regard (note that this is a global website and as such the US tax code is literally foreign to many here) and Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about good work. Since you say you are associated with this organization, please review conflict ot interest and paid editing for information on formal declarations to make. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you "created the page to raise awareness of the existence of the organization" that is NOT what a Wikipedia article is for, the article reads like a blatant advertisement and will need a complete re-write in neutral tone if it is ever to be accepetd. Theroadislong (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:58, 30 January 2021 review of submission by D1ofBerks

Hello, I have been in discussions with an editor regarding my article Draft:Direction Finding by Amplitude Comparison. He suggests that I come to you for advice.
Before I resubmit the article it requires some amendments (to give a better introduction to the mathematical concepts and to remove several examples of synthesis), which I hope to do shortly.
In addition though, it has been suggested that the material could (should?) be added to an existing article Direction finding. Initially I considered doing just that, but decided not to for the following reasons.
1. The article would become excessively long.
2. The existing article describes, in general terms, a number of techniques that existed before the second world war, at RF frequencies (i.e frequencies below 1 GHz), whereas my article gives explicit details about a DF method applicable at microwave frequencies (i.e. frequencies 1GHz to 20GHz), which became possible after the war.
3. The techniques and equipment involved, at microwave frequencies, are quite different to those at RF. In addition, the previous techniques are unsuitable for detecting a transmitter bent on avoiding detection.
4. My article does show how a bearing value is actually determined. This does involve some mathematics which, next time, I hope to explain more clearly. Also I give references for technical readers, who wish to obtain more information.
Consequently, the two approaches are rather different, and this may look odd in the same article.
What do you think? Please advise.

D1ofBerks (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D1ofBerks, It seems to me that you need have a conversation with the reviewer who rejected it in order to determine their rationale. Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent My only rationale is that I think it should be merged into the already existing direction finding article. I also saw that a split-off from the topic has a requested merge tag on it right now. I guess that D1ofBerks just doesn't agree with my rationale. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 30

January 2021 (UTC)

SL93, seems a decent rationale to me. Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you (all) for your comments.
I shall now consider how to best merge my article into the existing one. I aim to simplify it here and there, but remain concerned that the final article will be very long. Will that be a problem?
D1ofBerks (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:04, 30 January 2021 review of draft by Asadpolash


Asadpolash (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just tell me what exactly I have to do to publish the article as as wikipedia page? i am stuck and I have added all the unique things here, still it's getting declined.

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr._ARSAFM_Qudrat_E_Khoda

Your draft has zero reliable references see WP:REFB for help with formatting them, but also the tone is totally inappropriate with far too much gushing praise... charismatic, extraordinary skills, diversified, prestigious, son of the great Islamic reformer, enlightening thousands etc. etc. Wikipedia just requires the plain dry referenced facts. Theroadislong (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:51, 30 January 2021 review of draft by Olivecool


I was writing a description with news and fact but being rejected. Dustykid is a fictional character like Hello Kitty. I am a fan of Dustykid, wish to let more people know about it. How can I make the article become better? Thanks

Olivecool (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olivecool. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor may it be used to publicize, or "let more people know about" anything, so your stated purpose is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. An encyclopedia article about a fictional character should treat the subject in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of the character in addition to a concise description of the character and its context. Hello Kitty is not a particularly good article, but it's a good topic because people have studied and written about these aspects of the character. There's even an entire book from an academic press about it: Yano, Christine (2013). Pink Globalization: Hello Kitty's Trek Across the Pacific. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-5363-8. Without multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of Dustykid, no amount of editing will get the draft published. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

00:45:37, 31 January 2021 review of draft by AlikotoSam


I saw that Tex Earnhardt has an article on him but his company that made him prominent did not have one so I decided to start a stub for it. I want to be sure if the references I used are accepted. I also need the main title corrected to Earnhardt Auto Centers. Thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AlikotoSam (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:56, 31 January 2021 review of submission by Shish Mohammad Jakaria


Shish Mohammad Jakaria (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:24, 31 January 2021 review of draft by AlikotoSam


Hello, my draft was declined because the moderator thinks it is more of an advertisement than an article. I do not understand his opinion and would like further clarification as I used the tone read in the founder’s article here Tex Earnhardt. Is there something I need to improve on in terms of my writing? Thank you very much.

AlikotoSam (talk) 09:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC) AlikotoSam I tend to agree. "Started one car at a time" isn't very encyclopedic. That sort of sounds like you are praising them. It isn't the only place, but it is the place where it jumps out the most.Naraht (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naraht Thank you very much for your response on this. I have taken out that statement completely as I think it does not affect the article much when taken out. Please do read through the draft now and see if what I have written is much better now. Thank you very much.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AlikotoSam, however the fact that they sell 32,000 vehicles (a year?) as of a given date I think is. Have you looked for similar articles?Naraht (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht I realised that that statement sounded like an advertisement so I took it out and rewrote the article in a much better way. Thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AlikotoSam I noticed that the information as to *where* the Auto Centers are is not part of the Article. That should be present, Tertiary sources (like the company website) are fine for that.Naraht (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Naraht Great suggestion. I will add it right away. Thank you very much.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:39, 31 January 2021 review of submission by Rakku1432


Rakku1432 (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rakku1432: Your article as it currently stands is entirely unsuited to Wikipedia. It has no content and no references. Internet celebrities generally need a very high bar of notability to cross which means lots of high quality WP:SECONDARY sources, which are not visible here. You haven't even stated why he is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:05, 31 January 2021 review of draft by Wrk1945


Although my references are in the draft article, they have disappeared from the editing section. Then, when I try to add a 'further reading section' in the editing section, the references in the draft article are dislodged. I have therefore omitted the further reading section for the moment, but need to reinsert it. Can you help?

Wrk1945 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrk1945 The location of the references looks fine. Do you need additional help? And as a note, the problems with the article appear to be mostly tone, that the phrasing doesn't look like a wikipedia article. Take a look at the articles for other british Diplomats at the time. That might help.Naraht (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:03, 31 January 2021 review of submission by Oliver Ricketts

{{Lafc|username=Oliver Ricketts|ts=18:22:03, 31 January 2021|page= My page has been turned down because it needs more reliable sources however, I am writing as the grandson of the person the page is about Oliver Ricketts (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oliver Ricketts, since you seem to be the grandson of the article subject please have a close study over here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There you will get some insights why this is generally problematic and why yourself can not be a reliable source. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:57, 31 January 2021 review of draft by AlikotoSam


Hello, this draft got rejected the first time because according to the moderator it sounded like an advertisement. I went back and rewrote it to make it not seem like an advertisement. Can anyone please help read through to see if it still sounds like an advertisement or not? Thank you very much for your time.

AlikotoSam (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlikotoSam, do not know what Theroadislong might say right now but is still looks like an advertisement for a local company. Please have a close look at WP:ADMASK. Hope that helps. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford thank you for your response on this. I have acknowledged the tone and I have rewritten it and I am still trying to improve the draft. I believe Theroadislong has an eye on it and I hope I am able to do well with my wording and approach this time. I am still learning and trying to improve my writing skills so I try to write a bit when time permits me. Thank you.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AlikotoSam, he already left you a comment on the AfC Draft but I personally totally agree, I also do not see any chance to pass WP:ORG, it needs to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford I am still working on the draft trying to find reliable sources. Hopefully this can help. thank you very much.--AlikotoSam (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AlikotoSam, I saw that you also got some answers at the Teahouse - looks like the Redirect being done to the Founder seems to be the best solution. BR, CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford Alright. Let me still keep improving the draft just in case there is the slightest chance. Making time to write is not an easy task but I am fueled by the desire to learn and better my writing skills. thanks.--AlikotoSam (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:26, 31 January 2021 review of draft by Longdogfan


Hello! Thank you for the quick review. I am a first time article submitter and current Remitly employee which I disclosed, but was not asked by the company to do a writeup or paid to do so. The submission was declined quickly for reading like an advertisement and lacking independent sources. What can be done to fix this? I tried pretty hard to remain neutral and objective, stating only short facts without editorializing and linking to independent sources to substantiate all claims like the Economist, WSJ, NYT, the WorldBank, USFG archives, the UN sustainable dev goals, and in one case the Remitly home page for a basic fact (what countries are served by the product).

Eyeballing other pages such as WordlRemit and TransferWise in the space - they appear to be substantially more editorialized - quoting long passages of corporate copy and origin story.

Happy to make edits or modify the approach - I am having trouble interpreting the feedback into specific changes because I thought the reference materials met the guidelines for independence and notability.

Longdogfan (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longdogfan Note that other similar content existing does not automatically mean yours can too; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to go undetected. We can only address what we know about.
It appears to me that the vast majority of sources that you offered are press release-type sources, the company website, or announcements of routine business transactions. These things do not establish that this company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. That the CEO was called to testify before Congress might be something for an article about him, but not about his company. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Thank you for the clarification and the link to explanation pieces. After reading those I'm imagining that at least 10-14/16 other remittance provider articles are not notable, or this one is. My thinking here is that of 16 other remittance providers referenced on the wiki navbar for remittances, Remitly is the only one without a wiki page. The others appear as this one to include a mix of non-corp press pieces, like the NYT references, and corp press for basic facts. Based on the crucial global role of remittances as economic aid and percent of remittances sent by a service - Remitly is one of the handful of most significant providers, which is also included on the Remittance page. Is mention of the firm in ~6 of the non-PR pieces + the extreme consistency of the other added entries insufficient here? I'm seeing few or no deletion challenges on any of the other pages so this would appear to establish a different standard for Remitly and other companies linked to from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_remittance_providers.
@Longdogfan: Please remember to sign your posts. You're right, some remittance provider articles are about notable companies, others are not. I've nominated Azimo for deletion. That's as much cleanup of the area as I have time for now, but other editors may mark additional companies in the category for improvement or deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thanks for the reminder :Worldbruce - I'll try to make sure to do that. The take that few of these are notable makes sense. If anyone has a minute - here are some test cases to make sure I'm understanding the notability guidance here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Independent_sources. I would interpret that this GeekWire article fails the test for the same reason Forbes does - many GeekWire articles are based on marketing materials (not reliable or independent). I would interpret that this Seattle Times coverage almost passes because the Seattle times is reliable and independent, but it maybe reads too close to churnalism: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/seattle-startup-remitly-nearly-doubles-its-global-reach-for-immigrants/. This Washington Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/trumps-immigration-policy-has-foreign-tech-talent-looking-north-of-the-border/2019/01/10/c199bf4a-03bb-11e9-958c-0a601226ff6b_story.html actually pretty easily passes all tests except significance, clearly being reliable, independent, and secondary. Remitly is discussed as the employer of one of the main interviewees, and its CPO is also quoted - so it gets included as a main support of the article's point, labor is impacted by Trump's immigration policy, but is not the main subject of the article - so I think it fails significance - but is close?. Is this piece https://www.americanbanker.com/news/in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic-two-remittance-startups-thrive by American Banker a clean pass as it covers both Remitly and a competitor, the paper has 50 reporters and a reputation for fact checking, and features Remitly/Transferwise as the primary topic + does analysis beyond just the churnalism rewrites? --longdogfan

Request on 23:07:23, 31 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Restorativejake


No sure why my page was deleted - I am trying to write one on a professor of mine. He sent materials to reference.

Restorativejake (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in re Draft:Mark Umbreit We do not accept material plagiarised or closely paraphrased wholesale from elsewhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 23:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Restorativejake: In order to try to write an article, you must first try to write. Copying is not writing, and I'm surprised that someone who went to university doesn't know you can't copy from other sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

04:43:36, 1 February 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada


Bikiransimkhada (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:47:52, 1 February 2021 review of submission by Bikiransimkhada


I've edited the reference list. Bikiransimkhada (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bikiransimkhada: Unless it gets really big in terms of number of users, it will likely not get an article. Its need have 50-100million users to be valid, i.e. generate sufficient coverage to supply good references. At the moment, the references as they stand are too poor. scope_creepTalk 10:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:38:21, 1 February 2021 review of submission by Mohammad Hassan Erahimi

I want the re-review to be done because the draft which was written was trying to inform people about a bodybuilding couch in Tehran, Iran and the only purpose of the article was to inform and introduce this person to the people in the country and in the sports industry of Iran and Tehran. This online introduction now is a must because of the current pandemic for career promotions. The material was not against the community of Wikipedia, because no out of the context matter was written there. Thank you in advance. Mohammad Hassan Erahimi (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hassan Erahimi The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. See the autobiography policy. Wikipedia also has no interest in aiding your career, enhancing search results for you, or in helping you "try to inform" people. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something or merely provide information. This is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources who chose on their own to write about the subject, to meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I need assistance to bring back my draft and submit it as an article. The article is not a self biography. This is the data I have been gathered on this specific person and I have published the data on him as a biography for him. H is one of the bodybuilding couches in my city and my country. I am doing an article him to make people know him. Mohammad Hassan Erahimi (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hassan Erahimi For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. If you are not Mohammad Hassan Erahimi, you will need to change your username by making a request at either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. As I said, your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. You offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support your draft. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. Please read Your First Article. If you just want to tell the world about this person, there may be alternative forums with less stringent requirements where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not done by the person himself. This is not an autobiography This article is about one of the sportsman and couches of bodybuilding in my country and my city. I gathered the data myself to prepare this biography on him. Wikipedia doesn't have any article about him although he is well-known in the country and in the city and the gyms as a couch. That is why I wrote the article. Mohammad Hassan Erahimi (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a username change because I made a mistake and put the name of the article as my username I didn't know this is going to be a problem and this would lead my article to be considered as autobiography!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Hassan Erahimi (talk • contribs) 10:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hassan Erahimi Thank you; that was necessary, but does not change the status of the draft you wrote. I think that you need to learn some more about Wikipedia before you make further edits; once you are renamed, please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:22:21, 1 February 2021 review of submission by 2400:ADC5:184:2500:35AE:A3B3:3F23:E609

i put some 1 more info in the wiki page at bottom so u can go and see that my resources are true and btw u can also ask 6b6t owner leee on 6b6t.co discord that my resources are true to join the discord go to 6b6t.co webpage and there is a link down below in that web page and leee owner of 6b6t.co said i can make wiki artical on 6b6t.co so i have full right to publish this artical thanks your for teading this:) 2400:ADC5:184:2500:35AE:A3B3:3F23:E609 (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:17, 1 February 2021 review of submission by ETHAN JA3DA


ETHAN JA3DA (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply] 


 Hi! So I recently wrote my first article and it was called "Not notable enough for Wikipedia." It was about the YouTuber "NileRed", with 2.4 Million subscribers. So I was just curious about why it was rejected?
ETHAN JA3DA Your draft offers no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about this person that show how they meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It doesn't matter if they have two subscribers or two thousand or two billion. If no independent sources write about them, they will not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Most "YouTubers" rarely have such coverage. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Subscriber numbers also mean very little as they are easily gamed. Is it one person with 2.5 million accounts? 10 with 250,000 each? Do all 2.5 million regularly watch the channel? This is why subscriber numbers aren't part of the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ETHAN JA3DA, next to what 331dot stated please have a closer look at Wikipedia:Notability. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:47, 1 February 2021 review of submission by Kkmal.Hamouda

My article doesn't contradict Wikipedia's purposes. It is AFC submission and is assumed finalized. I am patient for the reviewing as asked me to do. Actually, I want to tell this is the last time I use AFC Submission. I learned a lot about it. If it can be accepted and finalized as AFC this time, I won't look back. This is a part of calculus mathematics, but historical for a problem of the natural log that wasn't solved for a long time and now is everywhere. It is for all levels graduate school and undergraduate university levels and all types of people who reads or interested.

This to tell you also, my article is not a how-to-do guide, not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. It is open and for all levels and community. As I requested previously to accept my article this time as AFC, and I wouldn't go back to use AFC Submission again. So it doesn't contrary to all Wikipedia's rules, contents or purposes.

Kkmal.Hamouda (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like original research, which Wikipedia cannot accept, in any case it has been tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:16, 1 February 2021 review of submission by Justice Faith

It's been over 3 months and Draft:RebeccaNnengiHampson has not been reviewed. I would like to request for an editor to review it, as it is quite urgent. The biography of the person involved needs to be posted on Wikipedia because there are so many blogs with false information. Justice Faith (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Faith Wikipedia is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. You need to be patient. It does appear that it was declined today. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources state. If you just want to tell about this person and counter what you term false information, there is social media and other websites where that is permitted. If you represent this person, please read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:08, 1 February 2021 review of submission by ZoeShanks


ZoeShanks (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I have reviewed the Wikipedia:Five Pillars article and I believed I reworded this article with a neutral point of view.

This is my first article and I wanted to do my best to make it an encyclopedic entry, but the fluffy words and grandiose of some articles I have been reading somewhat blurred my common-sense in writing this. After re-reading the Five Pillars I now understand this.

Please give me feedback on my new edits if you can and let me know if my new rewording is correct. Thank you.

It may not read like an advert now, but it's unclear how it would pass WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:31, 1 February 2021 review of draft by CasaBasaSF


I am using the visual editor to create my possible submission. I've worked hard on the content and its supporting references, as well as continuing to work on my tone and trimming what to include before I re-submit. My question is on how to format the look of the page. I've looked through the material but it all looks like it wants me to code. If it was simple html/css, no problem, however though I understand what the coding is asking, it is more than my old brain wants to comprehend. Is there a simpler way to wrap a box around some text for a toc, for instance? Or to do a horizontal rule across the page?

Thank you very much. I remember when this started and it was a much simpler process to recommend and submit articles. However many years later, I marvel at how far it has come. CasaBasaSF (talk)CasaBasaSF CasaBasaSF (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:36, 1 February 2021 review of draft by Ella Lachow


Ella Lachow (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ella Lachow: You didn't ask a question. The distannce numbers IMO need a source. @Jmertel23: Do you have additional concerns? Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:28, 1 February 2021 review of draft by Aficia


Thank you for your help. I submitted an article and received a rejection response stating that the proposed article had "insufficient content" for an article. It is my first article so I was hesitant to make it overlong, but there was much more information available on the subject. However as a new editor I don't know if the amount of content is the problem or something else. FYI, I quoted and cited multiple published (non-Wikipedia) sources on the topic, published between 2002 and present. Thank you again for any information and advice to improve my contribution. Aficia (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Aficia (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aficia, your draft has not been rejected. It has, instead, been declined with a firm suggestion to merge it to Jucifer. Any Wikipedia editor in good standing may edit any article, so there os nothing to prevent your making these additions. Fiddle Faddle 10:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:53, 1 February 2021 review of submission by 2601:41:4003:D420:CC5F:B578:331C:CDB6


2601:41:4003:D420:CC5F:B578:331C:CDB6 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:11, 1 February 2021 review of submission by 96.89.20.85

why is this getting denied 96.89.20.85 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be only one source here that would contribute towards notability. Google Play does not show notability as it is a directory/registry of sorts and is not WP:SIGCOV. AviationFreak💬 05:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:02, 1 February 2021 review of submission by 2603:8000:D201:97E:9185:BBDA:FECB:C615


2603:8000:D201:97E:9185:BBDA:FECB:C615 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Advanced Medical Solutions International (AMSI) If their device is for real, then SOMEONE START AND ARTICLE ON The Covid Hunter device and the owning company.[reply]

I'm really not sure what you mean - I looked at your draft (Draft:The Covid Hunter (device)) and it is quite a ways away from the WP:GNG. AviationFreak💬 05:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reading WP:Your first article may also be woth some time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:45, 1 February 2021 review of submission by JBWPpw


JBWPpw (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC) I submitted a revised draft on my proposed page Barry Rumack on Nov 18/2020 and it has not yet been reviewed. i s ther anything futher I should be doing?[reply]

@JBWPpw: Not at the moment - There is currently a large backlog at AfC, and it may be a little while longer before the draft is reviewed. In the meantime, you are welcome to improve your draft if you feel it is lacking in any areas. AviationFreak💬 05:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2

05:16:28, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Akhilnair1101


Was not aware that Wikipedia had an issue with all sources originating from a single source. I went back and added more information and also found information from different sources (news websites). I am not affiliated with the Heatwave radio and I have no intentions in marketing for them.

Akhilnair1101 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:51, 2 February 2021 review of draft by Ufilm


Ufilm (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ufilm, what help and advice would you like? Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:57, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Niranjanvivek


Niranjanvivek (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niranjanvivek, You resubmitted it with no substantive changes or no changes at all. What did you expect to happen? Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:42, 2 February 2021 review of submission by אור פ

this draft has been re-submitted after a consensus regarding its contents has been reached with User:Scope creep and User:chicdat and following their advice to do it.

אור פ (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

אור פ, You had made an edit which hid the content. I have unhidden it. The draft is not currently submitted. You need to inspect it to see if what I have done meets your needs, then submit it Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject is notable due to the detoxify procedure which is recognised internationally and has references on at least 3 continents, by a cursory search. Personally I can't see what is wrong the tone of the article. I did send a message to User:chicdat to investigate it, but he never replied, probably not in. But I do think sufficiently notable to pass Afd and it is sufficiently referenced. scope_creepTalk 10:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, might I suggest you submit by proxy and accept it? Fiddle Faddle 10:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't editing that day. He's improved things a lot. Yes, I support accepting it. Can we get someone uninvolved to do it? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Scope creep and Timtrent (almost did {{u|Fiddle Faddle}}). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, I get notifications either way! Fiddle Faddle 11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, by your alt account, Fiddle Faddle. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you hit the resubmit button so it can be progressed, @אור פ: scope_creepTalk 11:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i hit the resubmit button, thank you User:scope_creepאור פ (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
אור פ, Accepted Fiddle Faddle 11:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TimtrentScope creepchicdat Thank you all!!! אור פ (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You're welcome. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
אור פ, Easy to do. Keep working to this standard and you will achieve many more articles. Might there be a WP:DYK available from this article? If so then now is the time. Fiddle Faddle 12:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:18:45, 2 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Tudjazka



Tudjazka (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tudjazka Your draft has zero content, did you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:13, 2 February 2021 review of submission by SteveBrown01


SteveBrown01 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello;

Below is 1 company page. I reviewed their references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Surgical_Implants

There is another company with similar independent references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigicon_Innovative_Urological_Solutions

Products and company names were mentioned in 3 scientific articles in Nature magazine. (Independent.) When we look at the Zephyr page, the same things appear there.

It is being taken off the air continuously. Can you help with the creation of this page?

SteveBrowm01 Please see other stuff exists as to why this is a poor argument. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about.
Who is "we"? Accounts are for individuals only. If you are associated with the company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with the company. But it is a title with the same independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBrown01 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who is "we"? With 6 million plus articles, it's hard to weed out every inappropriate one. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:38, 2 February 2021 review of submission by 82.28.77.161


we have added to the bio and added press relating to Liv 82.28.77.161 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not cite ourselves. Get rid of every single citation to Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:55, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

Hello, last time I resubmitted this page for review I received very helpful feedback in terms of getting this page draft approved. I followed all recommended advice (including and would appreciate if someone could take review the page draft once again. Thank you!

Barouy13 (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barouy13 Rejected drafts usually cannot be resubmitted, but since it was rejected in October, you could probably submit a fresh draft(such as "JumpCloud (2)". However, most of what remains in the draft is routine business transactions, which does not establish notability. See WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:28, 2 February 2021 review of submission by Nomorewriting


I'm wondering why after I've provided at least 20 non-press release articles they have been deemed, insufficient, not noteworthy or insignificant. It's a little odd to me considering my uncle has a wikipedia page that he wrote himself. Is it because he's obviously a man? I've found multiple articles stating that women who contribute to wikipedia or try to create wikipedia pages about other women are usually given the same response - your information, subject, person is insignificant. If they manage to get an edit through it's almost always edited back.

https://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ https://www.fastcompany.com/3041871/more-like-dude-ipedia-study-shows-wikipedias-sexist-bias#:~:text=But%20whether%20you're%20sensitive,across%20Wikipedia's%20millions%20of%20articles.

Now is that because they really are insignificant? Or are they insignificant to wikipedia because they lack a penis? Every draft I've submitted has been reviewed by a man and deemed insignificant and since I've provided a number of reliable resources in which the subject of my wikipedia article is the subject of the source, I'm thinking these rejections are based on my subject's gender. I'm wondering if the rejections I got weren't because I had "insufficient evidence and therefore my subject was insignificant" or "The evidence would be sufficient and your subject significant if only you both had penises". I had to change my username just to not be harassed during feedback sessions.

There are many wikipedia pages with outright wrong information just because the male contributors of this site deem it correct. Does wikipedia really care about being accurate? Or do you care about spinning facts to your misogynist agenda? I'll probably get a lot of shit for this question or completely ignored, but just know this is the stuff of class action lawsuits. And women are not shutting up.

Nomorewriting (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomorewriting Please review No legal threats. I'm curious as to how you know the gender of the person on the other end of the computer.
Yes, there are articles with incorrect information. It isn't because "male contributors of this site deem it correct", it is because this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and as such it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Feel free to pitch in and point out this incorrect information.
The sources you have offered are not in depth coverage of the subject. Sources need to be more than brief mentions or basic announcements. I get that it is frustrating to have something you worked hard on declined, but there is no conspiracy here. We don't know your gender unless you tell us. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read WP:NPA, Nomorewriting. Lobbing personal attacks and accusing people of misogyny because they felt your draft didn't meet our General Notability Guideline, is a disproportionate response, and personal attacks are not tolerated. No idea what the deal is with the article about your uncle, but it is possible he created it without submitting it for community scrutiny. There are a lot of poorly-written, promotional, self-serving articles at Wikipedia. The existence of those articles doesn't suggest that they were approved any more than trash on the street suggests that littering is approved. And no, he shouldn't have written that article about himself, because it's unethical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My name was obviously female and so was my subject's name. It's called common sense. And what I said was a warning, not a threat. I never said "I am going to sue" I said this sexism is going to get you sued. There's a difference. I could tell the reviewers were men by their username and the way they spoke to me, just like they could tell I was female by my username. In case you didn't read my comment all the way through, I mentioned having to change my username because it was too female. Tell yourself what you want, but your dismissal of my comment tells me you're probably a man too.
I'd like to add that I never called anyone out specifically, so your claim that I personally attacked anyone is completely unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorewriting (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to spend much time on this, but just to clarify, suggesting that an editor declined the draft because the subject lacks a penis, would qualify in my opinion as a personal attack, whether you mentioned them by name or not. Moving to more fruitful areas, the draft was declined because the reviewer felt that you did not demonstrate that the subject meets our General Notability Guideline. If you want to argue that the draft does meet the criteria, then feel free to do so. Which of the sources in the article are all three: independent, reliable, and speak about the subject in great detail? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, alrighty then. You just proved my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorewriting (talk • contribs) 00:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


February 3

01:24:09, 3 February 2021 review of draft by Elizasnook3


Hi there! I have an article being published about Caroline Blazovsky and it's been denied due to "unreliable sources" -- I am curious as to what makes something reliable or not. These are articles/references are from well known magazines and news outlets.

It is also mentioning that needs to read from a neutral point of view and I believe it is. Any notes would be much appreciated.

Thanks!


Elizasnook3 (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, well, first, in order to be deemed notable at Wikipedia, the draft writer has to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage means in depth writing about the subject. Reliable sources typically means major mainstream publications with clear editorial policies and established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Independent means that the sources should not rely on participation by the subject, or rely on information provided by the subject or entwined entities. So looking at some of the sources in the article, Forbes magazine is a reliable source, but much of the content that appears on Forbes.com is written by contributors, who are often not reliable sources--oftentimes, they are bloggers. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which reflects the many discussions that were held about this. Forbes even disclaims responsibility for contributor content.
PR websites typically rely on content submitted by primary sources, and thus, probably exercise little editorial control over the content. Do they fact-check? Doubtful. And since they get their information from sources entwined with a subject, that doesn't make them independent of the subject. US Patent Office would be fine for proving that a patent exists, but contributes nothing toward the notability of the subject. Blogs and other faceless websites don't qualify as reliable, because anyone can start a blog or website and publish whatever they want--there is no presumption of accuracy. See WP:UGC. Interviews don't help to establish notability either, even if published in reliable sources, because they are dependent on the subject's participation. So to establish notability, you need to show that multiple mainstream, known sources wrote about Blazovsky in great detail, independently. Hope that helps to explain things. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:54, 3 February 2021 review of submission by JaneK153

My article was rejected due to issues with references. What exactly was the referencing issue and how can I correct this to ensure the article is approved.

JaneK153 (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:42:07, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Akhilnair1101

Hi,

I apologize for not being aware that Wikipedia did not accept pages with all information coming from a single source, therefore I did more research and improved the quality of this page and added more sources. Please reconsider and publish this page, thank you very much for your time!

Akhilnair1101 (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilnair1101 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. Announcements of routine business(such as the opening of a radio station) do not establish notability, especially when it mostly consists of an interview. Multiple independent reliable sources with significant, in depth coverage of the subject are needed. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:16:54, 3 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahant Dr Yogi Vilasnath



Mahant Dr Yogi Vilasnath (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:02, 3 February 2021 review of submission by 1amtarunkumar


1amtarunkumar (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1amtarunkumar You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves; we are only interested in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say with significant coverage about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:47, 3 February 2021 review of draft by Paa Kwasi


Paa Kwasi (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a help because I know you can help me review/edit my Biography!

15:29:53, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Lmselby


Kindly help me to know the exact reasons for rejection.Thank you Lmselby (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:01:30, 3 February 2021 review of draft by Srapley81


This the first wiki article I've ever written, so I'm struggling to know whether what I've produced is acceptable, or what changes I need to make. Can you give me some indication? I've added more references to support the information on the page.

Srapley81 (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:48, 3 February 2021 review of submission by Lovemyfamilybut?


Hello, could you please tell me how RealtyShares is not notable? There are hundreds of articles published about it online. It was a company dealing in hundreds of millions of USD. Fundrise and RealtyShares are much alike. What can be done to make this successful? Please advise.

Lovemyfamilybut? (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1004631495"