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 Rawalrajendranath (talk | contribs) at 03:19, 12 April 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


April 6

01:01:44, 6 April 2021 review of draft by 1.136.110.76


1.136.110.76 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you failed to respond professionally, rationally, and appropriately to a very simple question! So no wonder why majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia, unfortunately, is such an infamous, notorious, insignificant, not notable, unreliable, and invalid platform which provides people with misinformation and which is a menace to the society as a whole. Majority of significant and notable people argue and are of the opinion that Wikipedia is nothing but just an unworthy and fake website run by a pack of arrogant kids acting as technical tyrants, and, unfortunately, childish, shenanigan, egocentric, arrogant, and inappropriate behaviour of yours proves them right. Majority of significant and notable people believe that Wikipedia has no right to intrude people’s privacy and very personal information. Majority of significant and notable people are of the opinion that Wikipedia is a sham and shame because it threatens individuals by committing illegal action of exposing their IPs and unlike other esteemed platforms, does not let people get rid of this notorious Wiki account by completely, totally, and permanently deleting their accounts. As a result, significant and notable people recognize and mark Wikipedia as a spam, unfortunately! Therefore, majority of significant and notable scholars out there argue and are of the opinion that it is high time Wikipedia put itself together or else shut itself down permanently and let significant and notable people take a breath.

Properly cite your sources and stop citing Google queries. If you're properly citing sources, as you should be doing for every single claim, then the question about invasion of privacy is irrelevant on the grounds of Wikipedia going solely off of what the sources say. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your childish rant is unlikely to get your article considered further. The reason the article draft has not be accepted is because it does not reference reliable secondary sources that establish the subject's notability. More than half of your references are Google searches. It is your responsibility to provide such sources, and you won't help your case by insulting Wikipedia and its volunteer editors. The link to the subject's LinkedIn page and exhaustive list of personal achievements also gives the draft a somewhat promotional tone. If you have a personal connection to the subject this must be declared, and promotional content is not allowed on Wikipedia. It should be noted that attempting to add promotional content and then posting insulting rants when it is procedurally rejected will not reflect well on either you or the article subject. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this user is User:Ala.academics, the draft author, then this is a ban evade. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was written before the block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:57:24, 6 April 2021 review of submission by PhilCrusie2


Hi, so latest edits are a big jump that makes it read clearer. Added some more on notoriety.

Fixed issues with links, by moving most of the extra links to an appendix for anyone that wants to dig deeper. This artist has so much global presence that I feel like there should be no confusion on their notoriety. I don't understand why no one was willing to look into the links because there are more than 7 UK publications and a feature in DNA Magazine, which is the largest gay magazine in Asia. This artist is from Austin, TX and has been covered extensively worldwide.

Hoping that this article will finally be published, because this has been so much work for me. It makes me sad that my writing is being criticized so much, when I was hoping it would be a more cooperative process. I haven't been on wikipedia's editing side in years and it used to be easy to post on here. Now it is very stressful and not much fun for me...

Can you please publish this article? There are too many sources for me to explicate on alone.

PhilCrusie2 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in "notoriety" it is notability we are looking for. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:03, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Fitedits0007788


Fitedits0007788 (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:42:03, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Fitedits0007788



hey, just wondering what are the changes I need to do on this?? thanks for helping out

== 04:42:03, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Fitedits0007788 ==,

@Fitedits0007788: add some reliable sources. Neither IMDB nor YouTube are reliable in this context, the same thing goe for instagram. All the YouTube links don't work for me, the format is either https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id or https://youtu.be/id. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:09:30, 6 April 2021 review of draft by HoustonAstrosFan97


Hello, I need help on trying to get this page published. I don't know how to improve it to make it submit. Please help me. HoustonAstrosFan97 (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HoustonAstrosFan97 note the review comment by @KylieTastic and submit when you are confident that it passes Wikipedia:NGRIDIRON If it opasses then it will be accepted. If it fails then it will not. The draft is not currently submitted for review Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:36:13, 6 April 2021 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5


2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:36:13, 6 April 2021 review of draft by 2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5 ==,

AlMaarefa University, Dirrea, Riyadh

Almaarefa University is located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It started in 2009 as a private higher educational institution.

Undergraduate programs being run are: Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing, Respiratory Care, Emergency Medical Services, Anesthesia, Information Systems, Computer Science & Industrial Engineering [1]

Almaarefa University logo.png

Contents 1 History 2 Program Offerings 3 See Also 4 References History In 2009, the university started as "Almaarefa College of Science and Technology" and by 2018, it was renamed "Almaarefa University"[2]

Almaarefa University Theater

Program Offerings Medicine & Surgery (MBBS). Clinical Pharmacy (Pharm.D.). Nursing (BScN). Respiratory Therapy (BScRC). Emergency Medicine (BSc). Health Information Systems. Anesthetic Technology (Anae). Information Systems (BSc). Computer Science (BSc). Industrial Engineering.

AlMaarefa University Campus

See also: List of universities in Saudi Arabia www.um.edu.sa/en

References [1] 

Adamu A Ahmed, "The new generation of indigenous private universities, University World News, 29 June 2019 . Retrieved 2019-07-01



2A02:CB80:4085:D4A0:7D8C:3F3:779E:80F5 (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a huge number of messages is counter-productive. The draft has been rejected. It will not be considered further unless oyu can persuade the rejecting reviewer to change their mind. From their comment this looks unlikely. Fiddle Faddle 09:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:36, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Gracetandeamara


Gracetandeamara (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC) i still don't understand why my article was rejected. i am new to this.. so please help[reply]

It would be helpful if you let us know which draft (the name of your article/draft) has been rejected. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Félicité Niyitegeka was deleted because it had been abandoned (not edited for 6 months). Theroadislong (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:27, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Helen Wallimann


I submitted my revised draft with additional references on 4 November 2020. Since the last refusal (by Kvng) was published on 21 October 2020, I imagine the revised draft was not received. What should I do? Helen Wallimann (talk) 07:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Helen Wallimann Welcome to the Helpdesk. There are currently over 5,000 drafts waiting for review so it can take up several months for a review. Your draft needs especially sources (Wikipedia:Inline citation) for the Awards being listed because right now the draft presents mainly coverage about his works (not himself) which is not sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:NAUTHOR. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:07, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Kalpanavgowda


Kalpanavgowda (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does not reference any reliable secondary sources to establish subject notability, is written from a promotional perspective, and, as you are a member of the company, you have a clear conflict of interest, which means that even without the lack of sourcing and unencyclopaedic tone the article would be the subject of increased scrutiny. Please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which covers notable topics supported by reliable secondary source coverage, and is not a venue for promoting business interests of any sort. See WP:COI, WP:PROMO and WP:SOURCE. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:22, 6 April 2021 review of draft by KhndzorUtogh

Draft:Congressional Armenian Caucus

I was told to use more secondary sources/ I used too many primary sources. I'm honestly not too sure what a "primary source" is in this context, and how many secondary sources I need to use for this article to be approved. Could this be explained? Thanks.

KhndzorUtogh, some of the changes you made are much better. Primary sources in this context would be pulling directly from the caucus website. I would even be uneasy about referencing press releases from members of congress who are caucus members. Obviously sources from the caucus or its members think that the subject is notable, they are part of it! That being said, the AsBarez and ArmRadio sources are good secondary sources. Bkissin (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion @Bkissin: I added several more secondary sources. Now half of my sources are secondary sources. Is there anything else I need to do for my article to be approved? Thanks. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:01, 6 April 2021 review of draft by Nedrum


Hello, I submitted an article for review, Draft: X-teens, and it was declined by AngusWOOF. AngusWOOF questioned the band's notability. Some discussion followed between me and AngusWOOF on AngusWOOF's Talk page. I provided additional information in support of the band's notability. AngusWOOF then replied, "please indicate that in the comments section of the article or the talk page so that other AFC reviewers can see it. Also you might want to ask Bkissin to review the article as it was considered close to being ready."

I have done as AngusWOOF suggested: I added information regarding the band's notability to the article's Talk page and left a message with Bkissin requesting a review. I have not heard anything more and just want to make sure there's nothing more I should do at this point, particularly since the article is still in the "Declined" state. Thank you

Nedrum (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:03:31, 6 April 2021 review of draft by USER888882231


USER888882231 (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such sources can be found, removed wholesale. In addition, merely playing for junior squads does not help his notability per WP:NFOOTY, especially as the subject is apparently still a minor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:37, 6 April 2021 review of submission by Bargainppe


Bargainppe (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:37:49, 6 April 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:ABD7:C501:143E:A9BC:4CC7


Can you please add more information and review? 2405:201:6:ABD7:C501:143E:A9BC:4CC7 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer run project, so if this individual is a subject you are interested in, it would make more sense for you to add more information before someone else reviewed it. But see WP:GNG first. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:10:37, 6 April 2021 review of submission by 64.30.247.61

How is this denied when this former student of Attica was one of the communities greatest athletes to come out of this small town. 64.30.247.61 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@64.30.247.61: there is no criteria for notability "being the greatest athlete from a community". They have to have competed on a professional international level. Please review WP:ATHLETE for the threshold to be considered notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Please also remember every statement and fact should have a citation to a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

05:32:00, 7 April 2021 review of submission by 37.111.134.115

@37.111.134.115: I have reparired the formatting and removed a Draft copy. Do you have a question? Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a talkback notice to their page. In case you are not aware, pinging IP does not work. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:27, 7 April 2021 review of submission by Lengstedt

Thanks for your prompt feedback. I have written the text as un-biased as possible. I believe listing a company name in Wikipedia does not go against any policy? What would you say is needed more to be considered as a proper article about a company?

Thanks in advance,

Henrik Lengstedt (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lengstedt (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lengstedt: The draft was deleted by @Jimfbleak: in the meantime. This makes it impossible to say for me what was the definitive reason (because I am not an admin and therefore cannot see deleted drafts), however, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, speficially the MOS:FLOWERY subsection, and WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:18, 7 April 2021 review of draft by Run n Fly


Can any one help to move this draft. I have already taken help from subject experts and admins. See User_talk:Titodutta#Draft:Ambarish_Bhattacharya. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also fixed the MOS:PUFFERY issues. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:28, 7 April 2021 review of draft by Mariapheidiklein


Hi, I am new to creating Wikipedia pages and I am confused as to what I have got to do to get my brand page published, specifics would be really helpful on what I have got to do to improve the page correctly so it can be published.

Thank you!

Mariapheidiklein (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mariapheidiklein First, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make.
A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia has no interest in what a company wants to say about itself or what it considers to be it's own history; Wikipedia is only interested in what others completely unconnected with your company choose to write about it. Staff interviews, the company website, brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, press releases, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Your three sources you have offered fall into those categories. If independent reliable sources have not written about your company, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Ideally, an independent editor would take note of the appropriate sources and choose to write about your company, though creating and submitting a draft yourself is okay.
Pleass read Your first article for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion, and is not in the business of "publishing" pages on behalf of any brand. All content on wikipedia must be supported by multiple reliable, published, secondary sources (see WP:SOURCE) and must be encyclopaedic rather than promotional in tone (see WP:PROMO). Your page currently only references one secondary source, which is not sufficient to establish the notability of the subject, and the page content is brand promotion rather than a summary of content from secondary sources. Please be aware that as this is your company you have a significant conflict of interest (see WP:COI), which means that your edits will be the subject of additional scrutiny (in fact, Wikipedia in general strongly discourages people from editing or contributing articles about themselves or their own organizations). You must also declare your conflict of interest on your user page.
Most importantly, if your intention in creating this page is to provide brand publicity then this is the wrong attitude to take and is unlikely to result in an encyclopaedic article that would be allowed on Wikipedia. In order to write about a subject with which you have a COI, you essentially have to forget everything you know about your brand, and write only what independent, secondary sources say about your brand. If your brand is sufficiently notable then this should be possible, but notability is conferred strictly by sources alone. As it is, the current page has a lot of promotional fluff and in its current form is highly likely to be speedily deleted under the G11 criterion for speedy deletion as unambiguously promotional content contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. BlackholeWA (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:17:23, 7 April 2021 review of submission by Tylermalinky


Hello, I am interested in any feedback that could be provided on the draft above. I have edited entries, however, this is my first article. Upon submitting for review the initial feedback I received is:

"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject "

I used 24 references while carefully crafting this entry, being sure to reference all of the factual information provided. The references are of significant coverage (typically the entire published article is about the aspect of Lowbrow Customs that is being referenced), and in published and reliable sources that are 3rd parties (independent of Lowbrow Customs). The references include online versions of national and international print publications, podcasts, blogs, media (television station) websites as well as professional organizations (American Welding Society).

I am open to any insight you can provide. I have reviewed the article and I do not see any references that do not meet the criteria provided. Thanks for your time!


Tylermalinky (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to random blogs and interviews with company principals are not helping your draft at all. See WP:Reliable sources for more details. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 8

04:19:02, 8 April 2021 review of submission by Oat2021


Hi team, I am requesting a re-review after following a contributor's directions to properly declare affiliation/COI on userpage and talk page of Draft: Better Holdco + added missing disambiguation + and made adjustments to make the Better draft neutral (removed marketing sounding language). Please let us know if we have followed directions properly. Happy to make any additional adjustments. Thank you for your time and review!

Oat2021 (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oat2021 Apart from the fact that the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, Wikipedia is a volunteer based project. We, the volunteers, expect editors receiving payment to hit the ground running, to have already absorbed all relevant policies prior to setting finger to keyboard and, in short, to do well the task they are paid to do. There is no bar on your creating a better, fresh draft. However, be aware that peole who only use Wikipedia for advertising purposes are viewed as Wikipedia:NOTHERE and tend to find their editing careers here to be short Fiddle Faddle 11:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:23:40, 8 April 2021 review of submission by Kwlee121

Hi, I revised the draft as per the suggestion from Robert McClenon. I benchmarked Wiki pages of comparable companies. The tone, sections and contents are aligned to benchmarks. Could you please re-review the revised draft?

Benchmarks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumtree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfferUp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijiji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nextdoor

Kwlee121 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "In addition to the marketplace, the latest version of Karrot in Korea currently offers local business advertisements, commerce and social networking, aligned to its vision of building local engagement" is blatant advertising the draft has been correctly rejected, also see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:06:35, 8 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sam445445



Sam445445 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam445445 It is customary to ask a question at a help desk. Perhaps you would like to ask yours? Please see Telepathy Fiddle Faddle 11:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent :-) :-) Have a look at his contribs regarding my UTP... CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford ah yes. Indeed. See, my Telepathy interface needs an upgrade. Fiddle Faddle 21:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam445445 I decided to do this for you. It was quicker than explaining. Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:27:31, 8 April 2021 review of submission by Tetide

While I was completing the draft of my un-edited article ERO - Dominique Philbert - graffiti artist, before it was put online in the public web by Wikipedia, a for profit company named wordisk 'stole' it from my user page draft, and posted it on https://worddisk.com/wiki/Draft:ERO_-_Dominique_Philbert_-_graffiti_artist/ . Be aware that it cannot be found directly on that company main page www.wordisk.com but can be found searching on google with the words 'ERO Dominique Philbert' at the second page of the google search results. I was very disappointed of that and had a correspondence with a Wikipedia volunteer named Rayna West. To defend my right to choose who should be the first to publish my article -a non profit organization. like Wikipedia and not a for profit company- I ask to post as soon as my article on Wikipedia and I will write to worddisk to remove it. If even in this case it is not possible to get online faster, I will give up and publish it on Academia.org and on Researchgate.net where I already have other articles. Please let me know what can be done and if the format of my article is acceptable and eventually which changes have to be done. Tetide (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetide you may not post email correspondence here. I have removed it and requested suppression
I note that you were told that every time you publish changes you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL.
There is no way around this, and your complaint, while understandable, has no merit under the licensing scheme. Other sites scrape Wikipedia lawfully and all the time. Your right of redress is nil, and you need to smile, nod sagely, and move on, please. Fiddle Faddle 13:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:19, 8 April 2021 review of submission by Sam445445


could you help me with what will be error

Sam445445 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sam445445 Sadly you oversaw obviously the following message "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.", you removed the notice. Please ask at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk how you can rescue and resubmit your draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC) @commanderwaterford sorry for the inconvenience. When am editing the article the that section removed I think. What I need to do ? how i can resubmit the article once again

Sam445445 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:08, 8 April 2021 review of submission by Tetide

Thanks for the previous answer, I could not believe but I learned, for the next time, to not post unedited discoveries before the article is online for all, as someone can see the draft, which is already considered public by Wikipedia, make a copy and publish it, before the author, pretending so to be the first. Now, my request for help is: what should I do to submit my article draft for publication online? ThanksTetide (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Tetide (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tetide I have added the submit template for you, but the draft needs a lot of work to get it formatted correctly first. See WP:YFA and WP:MOS. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tetide Since you will need to do work to format a draft there is little point in trying to do that off-line. If you are unduly possessive about what you are doing then you are forgetting a basic principle of Wikipedia. That is that the moment you press the Publish button the text is anybody's because you have licenced it thus.
Now, please do not create a new section for every supplementary question. Just add to the prior section. And simply enjoy creating and editing articles without worrying about some other goshdarn site using it. If they use an unedited draft it's not your loss, it's theirs. Fiddle Faddle 21:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:48, 8 April 2021 review of draft by MrBlueBirdLover6


How can I make the article seem less of an advertisement and more of a encyclopedia entry? MrBlueBirdLover6 (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrBlueBirdLover6 Neutral prose and references. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 21:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

06:16:47, 9 April 2021 review of submission by AmirThunder

he is a well known basketball player and one of the best slam dunker in my country (iran) ,some of his career is not in the internet i thought his FIBA3X3.com confirmed profile would be enough reference and still declined i don't know why !please review this carefully and tell me what should i do. thank you for helping me. AmirThunder (talk) 06:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AmirThunder He does not seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable basketball player. He would need to have played in one of the leagues named in that definition. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:10:33, 9 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Alienethar



Alienethar (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alienethar it has been both rejected and deleted. For your next attempt please read Help:Your first article before starting Fiddle Faddle 07:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:48, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Axomiya Elon

The said politician is the Chief Executive Member of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council of Assam. A politician should have a Wikipedia page I guess. I've given the proper references. Autonomous Councils are administrative region within Assam. U can check more on the Internet and Wikipedia itself. Before deleting again, please read some articles on the Internet.

Axomiya Elon (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Axomiya Elon Many politicians merit articles, if they meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, but they must also receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to merit an article. You only offered two sources, one merely stating his position on the Council and another describing the existence of the Council. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
31dot 331dot

Then how Bhabesh Kalita article is surviving on Wikipedia? With only 3 references? Isn't that some kind of discrimination? I guess Wikipedia charges fee on publishing articles. A cabinet minister has got his article on Wikipedia with 3 references which are perhaps outdated, but the CEM of an Autonomous Council doesn't qualify for wiki article as notable person? Axomiya Elon (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Axomiya Elon Your allegation is one that you need to withdraw. Wikipedia charges no fees, neither overt nor covert.
There are many poor articles on Wikipedia that do not deserve to be here. They will go eventually if that is what is required Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Axomiya Elon Wikipedia does not charge fees to have an article. Third parties offer Wikipedia editing services, but these are not endorsed by Wikipedia and paid editors must comply with the paid editing policy.
Please see other stuff exists. That other similar articles exist does not automatically mean yours can too. Each article or draft is considered on their own merits. I've explained why the sources for your draft are inappropriate. If you have others, please offer them and discuss the issue with the reviewer that rejected your draft. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:24, 9 April 2021 review of draft by Norah Abdulrahman

Given that the article discusses an Arab person who's mostly known in the Arab world, most of the resources are in Arabic. This is perhaps why the reviewer hasn't published the article yet. I am not sure how to support my claims and I don't wish for the article to be deleted, so, would adding the writer's twitter page as well as his website, which contains information on him, his works and achievements be enough? Perhaps an Arabic speaking reviewer/editor could verify the resources? Thank you. Norah Abdulrahman (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:11:34, 9 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Pro95mustafa


Hi there, I am confident that he's well known and noticed in the Iraqi society, but as you may or may not know, Iraqi media in recent years was depending mostly on social media platforms even the official outlets, such as the syndicate of dentists which is an official governmental entity posted on him more than once on social media (here). Their official website is not frequently updated and more than 100 doctors posted about him on social media platforms, of these doctors some are very well known, who are sad to lose him and his professional and scientific input. As for rewards he got awarded with more than 20 awards you can find the source here. I haven't added this yet because I'm trying to collect more than one source and if I can get certificate images but sadly the Iraqi media websites have issues because Iraqis don't browse websites all that much, instead they use social media platforms. If there is anything I can provide you with, please tell me, but I'm pretty sure that this doctor is well known in Iraq and I can provide his social media accounts links. the problem with Iraqi sources is that they do not use websites all that much, even for official governmental sources (such as the Syndicate of Dentists or the Ministry of Health) are more active and write official releases on their social media accounts more often than they do on their websites if they even updated them. This doctor has been awarded on their website, he even has certificates from the Minister of Health himself, this is mentioned in the official university of Kufa website as you can find here The other problem is that half of the official accounts in Iraq don't go through the verification process so even though they are reliable sources, they don't have the verification badge. I hope that you understand how the situation is in Iraq, and can you please check this link here it's Urubah Foundation for Human Rights official NGO, Which is verified by the Organizations Registration Department of the Iraqi government, It has published about the death of the doctor and helped orphans in their grief over the loss of the doctor, as mentioned in the description of the post, but every one publishes in the social media and they don't have a website As well as many official parties which they do not own websites, thank you in advance.

Pro95mustafa (talk) 10:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the issues with sourcing (which I'm not yet awake enough to get into the weeds on) this reads like a curriculum vitae. We don't accept CVs. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not CVs!, who writes CVs for a dead person? I write it like a lot of articles on Wikipedia --Pro95mustafa (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:47, 9 April 2021 review of draft by Suryaprakashpatil


Suryaprakashpatil (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryaprakashpatil No record of any contributions by you Fiddle Faddle 12:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:29, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Artstr

Hello,

How can I improve the article? The photographer has appeared in several famous magazines

Artstr (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artstr The draft has been rejected, and will not proceed further. For future drafts please read Help:Your first article and concentrated on correct referencing Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:05, 9 April 2021 review of submission by LakersLad887


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}}

Asim Riaz is a reputed and international star with fan following all over the world. He also worked with famous music labals like T-Series, Sony etc. He has also won many individual awards for his stint in Bigg Boss 13 and he is currently one of the most popular actors and models in the country and widely recognized face across the country. He was also nominated television personality of the year award and ranked 17 in Times 50 Most Desirable Men 2019 list. Hence requesting you to accept and post this article in wikipedia as he is a very reputed and popular star in the music and television industry. LakersLad887 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are almost all too light on any usable details to be usable. There's virtually no in-depth discussion of him specifically that isn't scandal-rag gossipy material. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:10, 9 April 2021 review of submission by 2600:8803:7D00:17D0:3C59:62F3:2A24:749C


2600:8803:7D00:17D0:3C59:62F3:2A24:749C (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


13:53:30, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Naixa

I'm a little confused about the reasoning for saying this draft doesn't meet the sourcing requirements. It has 27 citations including from major blogs, websites, and even newspapers. That seems to be fair more than what I find in a typical entry this size. Am I missing something?

My other question is:

Looking at other places that detail national awards, the winners are listed, so I'm not clear why they wouldn't be in this post.

The rest I'm going to work on to address, but I'd like to figure out the two above points so I can figure out how to tackle them. The source this is the really weird one, in my mind.

Here is the note left by the reviewer:

"Large parts of the draft are presented without a source, others should be removed. The 'Clients' section is something that is generally not considered encyclopedic. Those that are notable (i.e. document in secondary sources) should be worked into the 'History' section instead. The various lists of people (for both The Bit Awards and Graffiti Games) should be removed. The sections for the Bit Awards, the Global Game Jam, Play NYC, and 'Education' could be condensed into a 'Activities' section that documents each in as much detail as is required, rather than having four sections with one sentence each."


Naixa (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources:
I will make a blanket statement: A lot of the sources above are more about Play NYC than Playcrafting. Coverage on Play NYC does not equate to coverage on Playcrafting; if anything you're proving Play NYC as a convention is notable, not Playcrafting. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:47, 9 April 2021 review of submission by 64.121.103.144

Help! My draft was rejected! Link: Draft:Starship SN15 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imho the rejection is correct. There are no articles about any of the other individual "Starship SN series" rockets. The series as a whole is probably notable, but each of the routine test vehicles/launches are not seperately notable. Another problem is the overall advertorial tone of the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:29, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Ruedi33a


Hi, I created a lot of mentioned but not yet documented battles of the Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Template:Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia Now I would have to create the "Battle of Zvenigorod". But this battle does not exist in Google, not in the books I know, not in the corresponding boxes of the German and French wikipedia. Can you please delete the "Battle of Zvenigorod" in the Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia...

Ruedi33a (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruedi33a that something is not in Google or other Wikipedia languages does not mean it does not exist, nor that it is not notable. This just means that you have not yet found references, online or print media, that verify it. It can stay as a redlink.
I am about to remove that template from this page. if you wnat to link to a template please use [[Template:Example]], which will link to it without including it Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:10, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Bendavidroi

I want to know why it was rejected



Hi Bendavidroi. The reason the draft was declined is given in the large pink box at the top of the draft and in the yellowish box on your talk page. More specifically, none of the references (wikidata, menafn, talkofnews, and techkrest) have the characteristics of reliable sources. Furthermore, nothing in the draft suggests the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (inclusion criteria). The draft is not an encyclopedia article, but more of an advertisement, which is something not allowed on Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:24, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Neypar9

Hello, This is A.s.o.g. I am a colleague of Neypar9 and I am assisting in gathering additional source information on this artist. Once that is posted, is there any other issues that you see with the page? Neypar9 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neypar9 The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Only Neypar9 should be operating the Neypar9 account; sharing accounts is not permitted. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:25, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Bendavidroi

how can I post this article? what's need to be changed/add?



Bendavidroi (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bendavidroi Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves or advertise their expertise. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:02, 9 April 2021 review of submission by 70.179.216.206


70.179.216.206 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now That The 2020-21 College Basketball season is over is time that the 2021-22 NCAA Basketball Division I Men's Basketball season now becomes an article. 70.179.216.206 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:17, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Bendavidroi

how I can to delete this?


Bendavidroi (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bendavidroi: I have marked the page for deletion per your request here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:32, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Nizevibes


Nizevibes (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:08, 9 April 2021 review of submission by Nizevibes


Nizevibes (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizevibes: Your submission was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. If you want to tell the world about yourself, use social media. See also our policies on autobiographies and notability. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


April 10

00:09:13, 10 April 2021 review of submission by RecessionAgitation


Lupienism is definitely real and these claims are accurate. To quote Andy Lupien himself, "Friends are hard… sometimes they're so annoying. I talk to myself sometimes. I like to talk to myself and maybe someone chimes in once in a while." (2021)

RecessionAgitation (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting our time. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --Kinu t/c 06:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:06:36, 10 April 2021 review of submission by 2600:8803:7D00:17D0:3C59:62F3:2A24:749C


2600:8803:7D00:17D0:3C59:62F3:2A24:749C (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not asked a question, but as indicated, the submission has been rejected because the subject is non-notable. --Kinu t/c 06:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My article Draft:Pewdiecake2music keeps getting rejected i have reliable sources

As noted by reviewers, the person does not appear to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:32, 10 April 2021 review of submission by Rustycandle


Hi, the feedback on the rejection mentions lack of show significant coverage. I added references to relevant tech blogs, together with a list of mainstream musicians using the instrument to compose music, and the independent paper on ArXiv. I've seen pages of instruments with way less coverage posted on Wikipedia. Should I add more coverage from blogs or amend the existing ones? I'm not sure I understand what is missing. Thanks.

Rustycandle (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rustycandle 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 or content to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. This possible existence of inappropriate content does not mean your inappropriate content can exist too; otherwise, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you would like to pitch in and help, you can identify articles that do not meet the appropriate guidelines so they can be addressed, we can use the help.
You have one source from the company itself, which is not independent; another that merely shows where the source code is; another that is just a discussion thread, which is not a reliable source; another that is just instructions for building one of these, just among the ones I looked at. These do not establish notability. Wikipedia articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just confirming the existence of the topic or telling us what it is, but in depth analysis and writing about the subject with a broader overview. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thanks for your feedback, I'll add more "Significant overage". About your comment on the place where the source code is - I used it as a reference to support the statement about the project being released under an open source license. Does that not count as a reference? Thanks.

@331dot: (service) editor forgot to sign. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:27:09, 10 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Akki97



Akki97 (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:19, 10 April 2021 review of submission by Frank Dawkins


Frank Dawkins (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries, if you won't accept my article. Stewart Bint is often asked why he doesn't have a short Wikipedia page about him, as he's a popular English author. But obviously not popular enough to feature on Wikipedia, lol, despite being a verified Twitter account.

Having a "verified Twitter account" confers zero notability I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:25, 10 April 2021 review of submission by Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé

Hello, I was told my draft was not accepted for two reasons: it isn't written in an encyclopedic tone, and the subject isn't significant enough. I don't really see what parts sound informal or promotional in my draft, if you agree with the reviewer that the tone isn't encyclopedic would you mind telling me what part you're referring to? As for significance, I beg to differ: Do-Hyun Kim won the prize for best performance in the Semi Final round of arguably the most prestigious piano competition in the world, the International Tchaikovsky Piano Competition, his biography is present on the website of many prestigious institutions and organizations, such as the Mariinsky Theatre's website, Young Concert Artists's website and Medici.tv's website, one of the largest platforms for classical music in the world, to cite only a few. On top of this, his videos have accumulated tens of thousands of views on Youtube, and he already has his Wikipedia article in French. Best. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé. Thank you for your contributions. I agree that the International Tchaikovsky Competition is a major music competition. Wikipedia includes a biography of every pianist who has won first prize there, and most who have won second prize, third prize, or fourth prize. That is consistent with Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians criterion #9. Do-Hyun Kim did not win first prize, either of the second prizes, any of the three third prizes, or fourth prize.[1] A prize for best performance in the Semi Final round is not enough to prove he is notable.
Musicians often have capsule biographies on multiple websites, but they all may be authored by the musician or their agents. The similarity of the bios on the Mariinsky and medici.tv pages, for example, shows that they come from a common source, rather than being written independently. Young Concert Artists represents Do-Hyun Kim, so is not an independent source. YouTube views is not a measure that demonstrates notability. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So a topic may be suitable for the French Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice-versa. Also, the existence of an article does not mean it should exist. It may mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet.
The arguments you make above will not convince reviewers that Do-Hyun Kim qualifies for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. If you cannot find independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of him, and showing that he meets one or more of the notability criteria for musicians, it may be too soon for an article about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Thank you for your time :) Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:51, 10 April 2021 review of submission by Smol23456


Smol23456 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC) Q: My article got declined. why? A: Because it was a test edit.[reply]

@Smol23456: Hello and Welcome to Wikipedia. While it may seem tempting to submit editing tests for review, the submit for review option is only for actual drafts for encyclopedic articles. Try reading WP:YFA when you want to know what we expect from a new article/draft submission. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:20, 10 April 2021 review of submission by Kitcat12dude3D

Hello, im a 11 year old child i have a group of freinds that has been working on this for a long time and i wanted to help them get recognition for there work and they were fine with this but i would like to ask why i got declined and what i can do to improve the page and therefore benefits my friends. Kitcat12dude3D (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article should summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, it doesn't look like your topic is notable yet. Theroadislong (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


April 11

00:03:23, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Elijah King Bethel


Major changes made to page and notability and outside sources now at an arguably reasonable level. Review requested.

Elijah King Bethel (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah King Bethel The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can make the subject meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:47:29, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Baseballnewz123


Baseballnewz123 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseballnewz123 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:49, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Legotwin

I am confused by the reasoning for the declining of my draft. I saw the film today at Seattle International Film Festival and was inspired to create a page for the film. I can guarantee that principle photography has been completed and cited so in my article. If additional sources are all that is needed, that is understandable and I can create a new version with more references to corroborate the information present. Legotwin (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legotwin Most reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. You only have one, not including the film website(which is not independent). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:10, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Dokta Moyo


Good day, Kindly assist as to where I can improve on this submission.

Dokta Moyo (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dokta Moyo please confirm that you have read the message in the big, pink decline box. This gives you advice. If you find something difficult to understand, please add to this thread and ask with precision for the explanation you wish for Fiddle Faddle 11:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:17, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Jonh takuma

I want to write about this person who is the best artist and rapper in Cambodia. Jonh takuma (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonh takuma uploading pictures of doubtful licencing to Commons is not the best place to start. Those have been nominated for deletion there.
Here, your draft is set for speedy deletion as an advert. Likely this is the total lack of references. Nothing shows he passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) and you need references to do that. You will be welcome to create a new draft is this one is deleted, with references, or, and this is important, you can contest the deletion using the bog blue button the deletion box, and state that yiu will be improving its to add references to it. If you succeed in contesting the deletion successfully then you must approach @ CommanderWaterford, the reviewer who rejected the draft and seek retraction of the rejection Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:07:55, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Profgeraintrees


I'd like some guidance on why my editor is requesting inline footnotes, as these were already provided in the draft to evidence any potentially contentious statements. I don't know whether my editor is asking for *more* footnotes for statements that s/he considers inscope, or wants me to format the footnotes in a different way (perhaps I have missed some key information), or remove footnotes that are irrelevant? I'd very much appreciate any guidance so I can continue editing the draft as a newbie. Thank you. Profgeraintrees (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Profgeraintrees I share your perplexity and am studying the draft and references to seek to determine the reason. All reviewers are human and errors do happen. @Tom (LT) - courtesy ping to see if you are able to shed some light? Fiddle Faddle 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Profgeraintrees Accepted It is to be expected that reviewers will disagree. I do not guarantee to be correct; I believe, simply, that the best place to enhance this is as an article, not as a draft. I've left a comment about referencing on the article's talk page. There is no compulsion on you to enhance the article further, nor to enhance the references, but you are welcome to choose to do so Fiddle Faddle 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle Faddle Thank you very much for your help, much appreciated Profgeraintrees (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:19, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Jonh takuma


Jonh takuma (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I need advise from you.

Jonh takuma Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonh takuma I gave you a details answer above. Please do not keep asking the same question. We are volunteers and answer as soon as we can Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:49, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Hercules Anton


I am rather confused. This article was not been accepted within hours of posting it. How much more significant coverage from reliable and independent media one should have (both print and online)? At least 10 sources about the article/subject were mentioned in the references, and more in the body. Please help. Hercules Anton (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm that you have read Help:Your first article first. This draft has simply been pushed back to you for more work. The Daily Gleaner is obviously a reliable source, but we need things dome somewhat differently. All you have provided is a list or references. We need citations as follows
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
In other words the facts that you assert need to be cited directly, rather than leaving that for others to do. It's not only sensible, it's courteous to readers.
Not good form to upload to Wikimedia Commons a picture for the draft of questionable licencing. That is being handled there.
Obviously you are important to yourself. But read Wikipedia:Autobiography and realise that we do not really care about what you wish to say about yourself. Wikipedia is a great leveller. Approaching volunteers with "what more do you want!?" is unlikely to further your cause
If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:GNG does that. Fiddle Faddle 13:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has declared that they are not Antaeus. Struck comment about that. Fiddle Faddle 13:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:42, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Rawalrajendranath


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rawalrajendranath Welcome to the Helpdesk, unfortunately you do not ask any question regarding your draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:01, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Rawalrajendranath


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:39, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Grebbsy


Grebbsy (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grebbsy Welcome to the Helpdesk - your sources are simply not so-called reliable ones - which are needed to proof notability for your subject. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners - find a grave for example is not a reliable source because it is freely editable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little experience in creating new pages. Can someone explain what is wrong with the sources quoted? Thanks

17:51:12, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Maxmarsh2021


hello. I am unsure of the feedback initially received. I have re-edited the article, and would appreciate feedback at this point to know if the article is improved or needs further editing. thank you.

Maxmarsh2021 (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:54, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Lfcfan2007


Lfcfan2007 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


19:34:32, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Pattygeorge


Hello. Im a stroke survivor who has been trying to make a positive impact by writing or editing articles by researchers in this field. I experienced another relatively minor stroke and its taken me a while to make this new reply to you.

In the interim, I noticed a different Wikipedia article about a less prominent stroke researcher named Darcy Reisman. It appears that my currently-rejected article has much more information than the one about her, and is being held to a higher standard than the article about her. Her article is much shorter, and Im being asked to supply information that does not appear in the article about her.

Please know that Id be happy to revise mine as you have requested, but it would be preferable to apply the shorter format that appears to be acceptable to you. Can you help me format my article in a way that would be more desirable to you?


Pattygeorge (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:37:32, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Formfactor

Hello,

The article that I summitted was rejected for the following reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

I just wanted to understand if there was a threshold or measure I could compare to. That would help me see if there is anything I can add to correct it.

Thanks!

Formfactor (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Formfactor please see Wikipedia:Notability (music) Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:18:34, 11 April 2021 review of draft by Meehowski


Meehowski (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Hi. The Gisto Draft which I created has been declined due to not quite meeting the WP:NM, WP:GNG criteria.... I would love to move this page to the appropriate holding location where I can edit it for future usage when there comes a time that actual notable sources become available. Is this possible and what are your recommendations. Thank you.[reply]

@Meehowski I=t hangs around here for 6 months if unedited in that period. then gets deleted Wikipedia:G13. But see Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/G13 which brings it back. Or, in fewer words, it's in it Fiddle Faddle 22:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:38:56, 11 April 2021 review of submission by Aiseeyah


The review just said the article wasn't "sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", I didn't submit this article but I was planning on working on it and am relatively new to creating articles from scratch so I was wondering, number 1: will this draft be deleted? Number 2: if not, what do you propose should be added to make ensure it meets standards of notability? More citations to specifically third-party news articles?

Aiseeyah (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


22:39:04, 11 April 2021 review of submission by HumanHistory1

We have an article on the 2019 Dallas courthouse shooting in which the only person killed was the perpetrator and there were no injures, in the shooting at Kent Moore Cabinets, one person was killed and six were injured including a police officer. I am a little confused as to how this recent shooting in Bryan does not meet the notability requirement by the shooting in which no one died or was injured does meet it. HumanHistory1 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

Request on 00:17:34, 12 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dayralorena


Hello staff, I wanted to know why is this been rejected? I have worked with this person below and has published content. What additional information is needed?


Dayralorena (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:14, 12 April 2021 review of submission by Rawalrajendranath


Rawalrajendranath (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1017320139"