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 Smithykit (talk | contribs) at 13:21, 15 January 2022. 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 9

04:17:00, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Spesshot

I have included new citations and removed unverifiable material in answer to the review and wish to know whether my citations are now sufficient Spesshot (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Spesshot Spesshot (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spesshot , it would seem from the contents you may have a conflict of interest; if so, you must declare it--see WP:COI. But what you now need to do is to 1/ remove all the over-personal material about his family, 2/ remove the table of contents you inserted--the software automatically generates it, 3/move most of the material in the lede paragraph toa section on publications, 4/remove all adjectives of excellence or importance--the work should speak for itself, 5/ add a specific list of the 4 or 5 most cited articles, using citation data from Google Scholar or equivalent, 6/ link additional key subject words to our articles, and 7/ try to copyedit for greater conciseness. Then resubmit, and let me know. He is very highly notable as a member of the NAS and holder of a named professorship at NYU, and we definitely should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:43, 9 January 2022 review of submission by WQFDU

Dear editor,

I have been modified the draft for several time and really need your help! Could you provide more details about how to revise the article to make it notable for inclusion in Wikipedia?

Thank you so much!


WQFDU (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WQFDU As the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further; no amount of editing can confer notability upon a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:50:47, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Aman13130

Hi,

I have seen Nabhit Kapur's draft is rejected many times and now I deleted all promotional content and added a few references. Can you see it for re-review? If it is still not fine then can you tell me the issue? Aman13130 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman13130 It was declined several times, and rejected the last time(there is a difference); The rejection means that it won't be considered further, because, as stated by the reviewer, the person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. No amount of editing can confer notability upon someone. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot this draft was accepted one time and then declined five times. This draft is about Nabhit Kapur, a famous psychologist from Delhi, India. There are more than 50 media sources that have written about him so I think it qualifies a notable person. Kindly look at the draft.


Thank you Aman13130 (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aman13130 It was never "accepted" as an article by anyone; it was created in article space, found to be not ready yet, and moved to draft space as an alternative to outright deletion. The sources offered include a video of him, an interview with him, and basic announcements of his activities. These are not acceptable for establishing notability; this is why the draft was finally rejected after several declines. It won't be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you have edited about no other topic, I'm wondering if you have an association with him; please read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:47:15, 9 January 2022 review of draft by Gutam2000


The journal page is pending review. Please someone look at the page and if its worth then publish or else purge it. Thank you.

Sridhar Gutam 10:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gutam2000: There is no deadline and as stated in the submission notice it may take two months or more to review. Please be patient as we are all volunteers and reviews are not completed in any particular order. S0091 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:58, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Arjun Chauhan Davanagere


Arjun Chauhan Davanagere (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Why my article is declined, pls help me with this[reply]

Arjun Chauhan Davanagere The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. To succeed in submitting a draft about yourself, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and all materials put out by you or your associates, and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. The sources you have offered are not appropriate; IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-editable, the other sources do not have significant coverage of you.
Also understand that if you submitted a draft about yourself and it was accepted, you would no longer be able to edit it directly, and would be limited to edit requests. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:18, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Valavanthan uma


Valavanthan uma (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was a blatant advertisement. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:54, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Rosko932


I am confused about exactly what constitutes "original research". My article, a biography of a research scientist, was rejected for that reason. I assumed that articles written by the subject of the article published in independent peer-reviewed journals and books would be considered acceptable secondary sources for citations, but apparently this is not the case. I have looked at other Wikipedia biographies of scientists and most of them have citations written by the subject of the article, including biographies classified as "good" by Wikipedia. So apparently, these citations are not completely forbidden. Is the problem with my article the fact that the great majority of the references were citations of articles written by the subject, and I need more secondary sources; that is, citations written by others ABOUT the subject and her work? It seems hard in the case of a research scientist to separate the person from their research, since that is normally the only thing they are known for. It seems weird to me that you can't directly cite the subject's own research in support of the article. Rosko932 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


c (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rosko932, the review by CNMall41 is irrelevant . The relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work. Her most cited papers have been cited 604, 472, 385 ... times, which is enough to prove notability for any acaemic in any field, even the field of biomedicine with its characteristically high citations. I am about to add them, and accept the article.
Nor do I understand the reference to WP:OR. WP:OR means that you as the contributor here should not be doing your own original research. I ssuppose the review was referring to the absence of 3rd party sources, but that's not necessary here. The career is adequately referenced by the official CV, and the importance of the work by the citations. The article does need some improvement, and I can best demonstrate them by the edits I shall make.
Please understand that 95% of submitted drafts are in fields where the GNG is applicable, and substantial 3rd party reliable published sources are necessary, so reviewers tend to have that in mind, and even good reviewers for other topics sometimes forget that researchers have a special and independent guideline. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "irrelevant." This is the draft that was reviewed. The only reference outside of the subject's "works" section was this used to support the sentence "Her dissertation was titled “Circadian rhythms of temperature, waking, and activity in the rat: dissociations, desynchronizations, and disintegrations." Using her dissertation to support that she wrote it is original research. All other references were just evidence of her work. The cleanup you did was better but still need reliable secondary sources, something I was unwilling to do for drafter since they are being compensated for Wikipedia work and I just don't feel comfortable assisting in such. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But for the 1st criterion of WP:PROF you do not need references outside the subject's work & an official CV--except to show the number of citations. As that's the relevant criterion for most academics, it is in my opinion not ideal practice to review such an article without checking for this. I have indeed sometimes declined an article and asked the author to addd the citations, but I do not call it failure to show notability; I usually word it, to avoid any possible challenge at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disconnect is between WP:NPROF and other relevant guidelines. Just because a topic is notable does not mean it automatically gets approved through AfC. In fact, it was not declined for notability. If someone meets PROF, that does not mean that we can then create an article full of unsourced content and/or original research as that would violated BLP guidelines. That is what happened in this case. So I would say it is "irrelevant" if it was declined for notability reasons, but it wasn't. I get your point, it just hit me wrong how you worded it in your original reply. No biggie. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:02:58, 9 January 2022 review of submission by Flyview


Dear editors of Wikipedia, I (signature Flyview alias Hans E Berg, MD/associate professor) am hereby asking for a re-review of my draft on a new article “Flywheel Exercise” that was first declined on December 30 by reviewers Greenman and Caleb Stanford, and thereafter rejected on Jan 4 2022 by reviewer DGG, all referring to copyright violation as I understand it: -Caleb: “this text reads as it was copied from somewhere” -Greenman: ”Although I cannot find the source, the text is clearly copied from somewhere” -WP/DGG/: Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: “apparently copiedfrom elsewhere” DGG (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Those words are indeed strong, and I must say I am shocked by this response, with no detailed substantiation of the alleged copyright violation. I can have other ideas of their hesitance, as developed below, BUT I have already firmly explained why this is my own original text; words and structure, verified by about 50 published references; most peer-reviewed scientific articles in sports and space medicine papers.

COPYRIGHT: I am open (se disclaimer on my User page) with the fact that I and my brother invented the modern use of flywheels in strength training (1993), and that we (HE Berg and PA Tesch) did the first commercial exploitations of this technology and founded YoYo Technology/nHance Inc. Since 2017 I have no economic revenue of the growing international sales stemming from my invention, however. Thus, I do not own any copyright to what is presented in the draft. Moreover, my text/wording is not pasted from the cited and scientific journals (owning copyrights). You, like I did, can verify this by running www.grammarly.com or any other browser for plagiarism! My language is probably shaped by my 50+ peer-reviewed scientific publications in muscle physiology, sports, rehab and space medicine and orthopaedic surgery during 30 years in science. Also, I wrote about 10 of the 200+ articles about flywheel exercise, and there are not unlimited words to use and ways to write the text. Images used within the first draft were however not all not cleared for copyright: -Aviation Space Environmental Medicine journal of 1994; first photo and flywheel principle. -ESA/NASA photos of use in space and science. -Photos courtesy of YoYo Technology (athletes performing flywheel training; 2005-2013). Most of the above photos/figures may certainly be cleared in due WP ways. BUT the current draft edition for the reasons use only photos from Wikimedia commons (free for use)! These include one recent flywheel rehab apparatus from a leading manufacturer, that I have no relation to.

The main reason to write an article in Wikipedia (I use it every day) is for the reader to find descriptions of all possible subjects of notability, which I argue for below. The reviewer has the obligation not to obstruct a writer/student/scientist of an article if the data can be verified, and that a potential bias can be resolved. I always start my scientific review processes to assume that the author is telling the truth, even when there could be a commercial bias; be sponsored/choosing a certain orthopedic implant for example. Transparency is the main tool to resolve it. In Wikipedia an article has the beauty of improving itself and any correction can be made by the multiple readers and editors.

NOTABILITY: References 5,6,7,38 of my submitted Wiki Draft are all review articles that discuss Flywheel Resistance Training effects on muscle mass, strength and sports performance. Using the world standard search engine PubMed (https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov) searching “flywheel exercise OR flywheel training” you will find a rapidly increasing number of sports science publications (39 sci. articles in 2020 and 38 in 2021!). After the (classic) use of barbells, dumbbells, weight-stack machines and your body weight, probably flywheels are now the most commonly used load for strength training. Searching NASA.gov or ESA.int; for Flywheel Exercise Device, reading refs. 3,4,20,27,28 or consult Wiki Human Space flight etc, will underline that Flywheel exercise is one of a few technologies being considered for future Mars missions. I think therefore this Wiki article is relevant for the WP Encyclopedia readers and merits for publication. Probably, there are other authors thinking of writing the latest experiences in sports/rehab and space medicine on this topic, and I think this article would be a good start.

VERIFIABILITY: Some of the above references are written by our research group during the first years after inventing this technology, but currently the vast majority of studies come from universities all over the world as mirrored by the current Reference list. Of course, my history of inventing, prototyping, researching and formerly marketing flywheel technology could make me challengeable or biased in my description; BUT again my thought this will be openly reviewed, discussed and if necessary corrected by all WP readers and editors as soon as the article is published on WP! Or before if you the editors point out the specific problems remaining. In summary, like many others this is my first article, and it has been hard work trying to master all theoretical and practical obstactles. I find the syntax/interface particularly hard to cope with; web-publishers have perhaps another standpoint. The 50 references are doubled in the current list and the many search terms in the text are not marked out. I will probably go on doing that if not an automated bot-program within WP does this automated. With the above words I hope that this article is thoroughly evaluated. Regards / Flyview=Hans E Berg

Appendix: The more extensive text of Greenman/WP was: “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 people). 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 

 Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.”

Flyview (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DGG, Greenman, Caleb Stanford, and Flyview:, I think this may deserve another look. Flyview, copyright is a legal issue for which both Wikipedia and the contributor (in this instance you) is responsible so I hope you can appreciate the seriousness of it. It sounds like you do. However, I am sure not how to get past "suspected" copyright violations but not "proven" especially given it is suspected by seasoned editors who have developed at keen sense for such things. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have the following question for @Flyview: Why did the original text contain a lot of inline figure references like "Fig. 1b", "Figure 2" etc. but no figures (and still some of these present in current draft)? It looked obviously copied to me (anyone can take a look at the history of the draft for past versions). I am most suspicious of Plagiarism#self-plagiarism: that as an academic in this area, you may have copied this text from a paper of yours, paper draft, or academic notes. I made no claim about a copyright violation.
Example (in current draft of article): "When fully unwound, the strap rewinds by virtue of the stored kinetic/rotational energy, while being decelerated by mostly eccentric muscle action (Figure 1b)"
Your claims don't make sense to me in light of such sentences; no one writing normally (even if they normally write a lot of academic text) just randomly references a figure that doesn't exist. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had two reasons for rejection: the basic one that makes the draft impossible to accept is the copyvio or plagiarism, as just outlined. The figure numbering is diagnostic. Resubmitting a draft containing such once it has been pointed out without removing it, would be seen by many admins as a sufficient reason to block your from Wikipedia. The second one, which requires rewriting throughout, is the advocacy that seems to underly the article; this is shown by the inclusion of multiple references for the same point, of excessive general background material on exercise, of using illustrations and descriptions of your own patented equipment and of over-expansive claims to have invented the method: the article itself shows the technique was known almost a century before your patent. That you patented a method and devices for using it for spaceflight training should be just a subsidiary part of the contents, and you made it the lede. It is extremely difficult, more than most people would realize, to write an encyclopedia article on something one has in considerable part developed oneself.
I do accept the notability , and I do not really understand why the previous reviewer did not. I do think it's an important subject, and I agree we should have an article. If you were to rewrite it, you need to 1/remove or rewrite all material from anything you or anyone have previously published (it is not practical to donate the copyright: the publisher is likely to own it, and the ownership is that of the authors, you are only a joint author for almost all of it and you cannot donate property which other people own in part). and 2/ try to write it to use the minimum number of citations from your own work--in a few cases your work may be the best citation, but not always. In rewriting, to avoid inadvertent copyvio from material you know well, I would suggest starting from scratch. (And I point out that statements related to the treatment of humana disease must meet WP:MEDRS standards). DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

02:13:59, 10 January 2022 review of draft by ZX2006XZ


What exactly does an independent source entail? This is not a review!!!

ZX2006XZ (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's sanity, please just wait until the movie comes out.Slywriter (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter:, Will do ZX2006XZ (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:14, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Aashish.bhatnagar


Aashish.bhatnagar (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Hi Guys, I have been trying to create a page about a company but am unable to do it. It has already been 6 months that it was launched with media coverage. I see many big firms listed but small firms need to struggle to get listed. :([reply]

Aashish.bhatnagar Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. Your draft is only sourced to two announcements of the company's activities. This does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and is not a directory of companies where mere existence merits inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. A company merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Basic announcements, press releases, interviews, the company website, and other primary sources do not establish notability. New companies rarely merit articles, they must be establish and recognized in their field to the point where independent sources write about them on their own, not merely publish announcements of what they do.
I see that you declared a conflict of interest; if you are a company employee or other paid representative, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:44:40, 10 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Madhat1988


I know I am new on here but I am asking for help with getting my article published. I have given citations to News, magazines, etc. Still nothing. There are other bands published on here with no News coverage, no magazines published, and yet. These bands get published on Wikipedia. The grindcore band named DAHMER is a good example. Please help me with Edit: Demi Dahmer. Thank you so much for your time !

Madhat1988 (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhat1988 Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles that are inappropriate does not mean more inappropriate articles can be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and with over 6 million articles to manage and only tens of thousands of editors, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. Furthermore, it is possible(though not necessarily a good idea) to create an article without going through this process(except for new accounts and IP users) so these other articles you have seen may not have been looked at by experienced editors yet. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
Your draft is sourced primarily to interviews and announcements, these do not establish notability. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own- and not based on any materials put out by the subject or their associates- to say about the musician, showing how they meet the speical Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Interviews are the person speaking about themselves, not what others choose to say about them. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:18, 10 January 2022 review of draft by Channire


The article I am trying to submit is a translation from an article already existing in the German Wikipedia realm. I am curious: why is it considered not relevant for the English Wikipedia?

Thank you!

Christoph

Channire (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Channire Different language versions of Wikipedia all have their own policies- what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter from others in my experience. Here, it is not acceptable to merely tell of the existence of a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you have offered are just announcements of the company's activities, or simple profile listings, neither of which is significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:07:53, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Camila Hazel


Camila Hazel (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Hazel You don't ask a question, but your draft was a blatant promotional piece. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:26, 10 January 2022 review of draft by Vladdy Daddy Silly


What do you think about my draft? It's a stub from the Italian page about the same argument.

Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:06, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Iwrite1117

This article is made for information purpose and it is a notable company that should have a presence on Wikipedia. Please let us know the exact reason on why this is not being accepted. Changed to improve the article can be made. Iwrite1117 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iwrite1117 Wikipedia is not for merely providing information or for merely telling about the existence of something. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. Your draft was rejected because it does not show how the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Please read Your First Article.
If you work for the company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:17:43, 10 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ThejusRajTheju



ThejusRajTheju (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:39, 10 January 2022 review of draft by Kateewilliamson


Hello!

I've been trying to publish this draft for some weeks now, following all the advice - but it seems to be in a deadlock. The article has more references and citations and far more detail than numerous other similar music producers. There are also numerous big articles published both about, in discussion with and mentioning Jolyon Thomas. I'm including another load of links here where is he mentioned which I thought would be overload - can you advise which how to get the article published?


https://mpg.org.uk/mpg-awards/2018-photo-gallery/ https://milocostudios.com/releases/i-slept-on-the-floor/ https://gavinfriday.com/archive/people/jolyon-vaughan-thomas/ https://promotionmusicnews.com/u2-kendrick-lamar-american-soul https://charleshutchpress.co.uk/tag/jolyon-thomas/ https://www.hmv.com/music/the-magic-gang-interview https://milocostudios.com/client/the-magic-gang/ https://conversationsabouther.net/jolyon-thomas-celebrates-first-no-1-album-with-royal-blood-new-music/ https://ourculturemag.com/2021/10/13/francis-of-delirium-release-new-single-all-love/ https://warnermusic.com.au/artists/royal-blood https://dirtyfilms.uk/director/youth-hymns/ https://www.udiscovermusic.com/stories/u2-songs-of-experience-album/ https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/arid-20463243.html https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/hear-u2s-exuberant-new-song-featuring-kendrick-lamar-197487/ https://etcanada.com/news/272207/u2-and-kendrick-lamar-release-second-collaboration-american-soul/ https://www.officialcharts.com/search/albums/how-did-we-get-so-dark/ https://www.billboard.com/pro/u2-songs-of-experience-billboard-200-chart/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/arts/music/u2-songs-of-experience-interview.html

https://hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=313935&title=GRAMMY-TALK:-U2


Kateewilliamson (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kateewilliamson Fewer high quality independent reliable sources are preferable to a truckload of low quality sources. Tell us what the three best sources you have are.
I am curious as to why you identified yourself as a paid editor and then removed it from your user page. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:31, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Emmy1707


Emmy1707 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Unfortunately, I don't understand what is not enough in reliable sources. Are there too few? Or is it due to the first one that is no longer directly available? Or because most sources are in German? I read similar Wikipedia articles about German o Austrian actors who had much less sources. What can I do? It would be so nice if the article were finally published. Thank you very much for your support and best regards.Emmy1707 (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:07, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Sauravlal


Sauravlal (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sauravlal You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or otherwise tell the world about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:35:05, 10 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SpartanburgBooks


I have been trying to get a page created for the Spartanburg County Public Libraries for the past year and have been unsuccessful. I have included sources that link to the library's website as well as articles published by news outlets. I'm not sure why my sources are being considered unreliable since other libraries have pages that only reference their website (see Orange County Library System). Why are the rules different for one library system versus another?

SpartanburgBooks (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Orange County Library System for relying on primary sources, the existence of one poor quality article doesn't mean we need another. Theroadislong (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:39, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Alo788


Alo788 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alo788: This page has been rejected and will not be considered further. This isn't an encyclopaedia article; it looks like an answer to a Q&A. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:30, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Tvcgfiba


Tvcgfiba (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, My editor at Charlesbridge Publishing asked me to create a Wikipedia entry, but I obviously don't know how to add citations, links to my website, and references, etc. The instructions aren't clear enough for me. I'm not sure what to do next.

Your editor is a clown. See Help:Referencing for beginners, WP:Autobiography, and WP:Conflict of interest. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unhelpful as your editor might be, it is still possible that you meet WP:AUTHOR--several of the books are in hundreds of libraries. If you declare your COI, there is no reason why you should not add references to substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads--and preferably not Booklist or Kirkus, which are neither substantial nor reliable for notability purposes. The other thing uyou would need to do is rewrite the present material, which is copied from the publishers blurb and cannot be used here for copyright reasons.
Though we certainly do discourage autobiographies, it is not totally impossible to write one in draft space that will be satisfactory. Look at articles for other notable children's authors to see the usual style. It is also possible that someone seeing this might write an article. (It would help guide them if you did add references to book reviews to your userspace draft (in any format )--it's the basic criteria for notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC) �[reply]

20:21:05, 10 January 2022 review of draft by JohnMoss67


Hello. I am new to this, so am not entirely sure whether my first article is being considered, or has been rejected. Could you let me know pls. Apologies for being slow on the uptake! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Taubert Best wishes, JM JohnMoss67 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your confusion. Notability can be by WP:GNG or WP:PROF. The article was first declined by another reviewer on Dec. 29 for not showing notability by WP:GNG, without considering WP:PROF. I commented , later on Dec. 29, that PROF needed to be considered, but said that it did not seem to meet WP:PROF either as the citations to his professional articles was too low. . You have made extensive further additions since then. I still consider the citations too low. Google Scholar's first item is a 2002 edition of a formulary, a medical reference book, listed as edited by someone else. WorldCat shows it to have several editors, but does not specify them the National Library of Medicine catalog record for the book does show all the editors, and he is not among them. [https://catalog.nlm.nih.gov/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma9911588333406676&context=L&vid=01NLM_INST:01NLM_INST&lang=en&search_scope=MyInstitution&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=LibraryCatalog&query=any,contains,50935735- It is more likely that he may have written one of the chapters of the book, but it's not listed in his CV. Otherwise the citations to his papers show citations of 112, 56, 56, 51...which is too low--in biomedicine the minimum has been 2 articles with over 100 citations each, tho we usually expect nowadays 2 with over 200 citations each. The award listed is not significant enough for the other criteria of WP:PROF.
It is possible that he mets WP:GNG as a public speaker. I did not analyze that; some other reviewer will. I'm linking this as a comment to the draft. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:25, 10 January 2022 review of submission by Garnetdarkmatter

Hi, all. My draft was declined on the basis of unreliable sources. I don't see any further comments, so I'm not sure which sources were deemed problematic. I know Wikipedia has its own rules, but I've only used sources that would be proper in a scholarly setting. Could someone take a look and let me know where I've gone astray? I just want to make sure that any further edits I make are really in service to community standards and not just what I guess them to be.

Thanks a million (and I hope I've formatted this message correctly)!


Garnetdarkmatter (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Garnetdarkmatter: You're missing sources, actually. You have claims that lack sources; this is not acceptable for articles about living or recently-departed people. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

02:07:53, 11 January 2022 review of submission by 2600:1702:42F0:2D40:E851:2CBB:B20D:BDC4

BRO PLEASE JUST ACCEPT IT IM 16 TRYNA MAKE IT I HAVE NO PARENTS I LOST THEM IN A CAR ACCIDENT PLEASEE

2600:1702:42F0:2D40:E851:2CBB:B20D:BDC4 (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept promotional copy. Please find somewhere else to promote yourself. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:23:41, 11 January 2022 review of draft by Floyd Heywood


Hi. I removed a reference to Discogs because you said it was not reliable. How can I tell if this has been reviewed and where the submission stands in the editing process?

Floyd Heywood (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Floyd Heywood. Your draft consistently refers to the subject as "Rob", contrary to WP:SURNAME, which says that a person should be referred to by their full name at first mention, and then by their surname after that. There are limited exceptions that do not apply here. So, he should be called "Crocker" not "Rob". References to the WGBO website are of no use in establishing his notability, because independent sources are required, because he works there. Your main claim to notability is a "longest serving" assertion in the first sentence that is referenced to his radio station. This is not cool and not acceptable. Your "Europe" section is entirely unreferenced and that is also unacceptable, because Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable, independent sources say about a topic, rather than what individual Wikipedia editors believe to be true. Cullen328 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Floyd Heywood. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. When it is reviewed, you will receive a notice on your talk page. If the draft is declined or rejected, that will also be noted prominently at the top of the draft. In addition to Cullen328's comments, I see several significant problems. You write that you removed a reference to discogs.org, but there are still two more in the "Producer" section. You may not grasp the purpose of citing sources. When you make a statement like "[Crocker] served two tours in Viet Nam in the Central Highlands with the 25th Infantry Division and the 155th Assault Helicopter Company", you need to support the whole statement. Citing sources saying that those units were in Viet Nam during the war does no good because they don't say that Crocker served two tours in those units at that time. By far the biggest problem is that none of the sources you've cited are both independent and contain significant coverage (more than a few sentences) about Crocker. In-depth independent sources are required to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:45:52, 11 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by NHArch


Hello - This is my first page so pls be gentle :)

I've tried to add a company page and link it to other pages that mention the work we have done. As per the instructions I have tried to make the languange as factual as possible, without soundling like I'm trying to sell something.

I'd be grateful if you could give me some help in structuring the wording so that it fits the wiki standards.

Thanks


NHArch (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:03, 11 January 2022 review of submission by Gs12108

  • [[User:Template:Gs12108|Template:Gs12108]] ([[User talk:Template:Gs12108|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Template:Gs12108|contribs]]) ([{{safesubst:fullurl:User talk:Template:Gs12108|action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&summary=You+have+a+new+reply+on+the+%5B%5BWikipedia%3AWikiProject+Articles+for+creation%2FHelp+desk%7Chelp+desk%5D%5D%21&preload=Template:AFCHD/u/preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=&preloadparams%5B%5D=07%3A29%3A03%2C+11+January+2022+review+of+submission+by+%5B%5B%3ATemplate%3AGs12108%5D%5D}} TB])

Why my page was deleted without no clear reason. I didn't create a page on me i create on a SINGER whose Wikipedia page was not made. So, Kindly tell me the reason and if you want to delete the page at least don't delete it for me so that i can improve my mistake. Plz after understanding my problem take a valid action on my problem. Gs12108 (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:18:21, 11 January 2022 review of submission by Tnatsnok


Hi. I'm trying to add the paid contributor template to the draft, but it seems to be non-editable.

Also, I'm not sure how to improve the style to be "less like an advertisement" as it's written factually - of course I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking for help.

A Thai-based crypto exchange called "Bitkub" has a wikipedia entry. I've looked at the style and sources, and I can't see the difference, to be honest.

Any help would be much appreciated.



Tnatsnok (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tnatsnok The disclosure should mainly be placed on your user page, User:Tnatsnok. Please read other stuff exists; other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can too. Otherwise, nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure you use ones that are classified as Good Articles.
You have chosen to edit in a contentious area, which has its own special rules due to past disruption; Wikipedia has been flooded with cryptocurrency related articles, most of which are not notable and take valuable time away from other editors who must address that. I will notify you of these rules in a moment.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place for companies or organizations to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, articles must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and not based on any primary source material- have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) 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; that is what social media is for. Most if not all of the sources you offer merely report the activities of the company like the raising of capital; this does not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:03:54, 11 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bo6dan at heyworld


Hello,

I am kindly requesting help from any of you, as this draft keep on being rejected. The last comment from a volunteer who rejected this draft is unfair. The article is now written from a neutral perspective and I have added all the references we have on hand now.

Thank you very much.

Bo6dan at heyworld (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bo6dan at heyworld Thank you for making the required disclosure. I'm afraid that, like many company representatives, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do, and where mere existence merits inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage- and not based on primary source materials or the mere reporting of company activities- have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the company have said about it. The sources you have offered merely tell what the company does, this is not significant coverage. If this type of source is all that there is, the company would not merit an article. It is possible that it could warrant a smaller mention at Lufthansa Cargo.
I will add that the rules on the English Wikipedia are different than those on the German Wikipedia, and what is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Thank you very much for your kind reply. However, I still consider this unfair. I guided myself after time:matters page, a sister company of ours. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time:matters ... their references should also be considered presses releases in this case, one of the rejection reasons I was given by another user. I would insist on reconsidering, as it would not make sense right now to add a smaller section about us on Lufthansa Cargo page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo6dan at heyworld (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bo6dan at heyworld The time:matters article has the exact same problems as your draft, so it was a poor guide to use(I apologize for being frank with you). You say that you added all the sources that are available- if that is the case, the company does not merit an article at this time. You may resubmit it if there are independent reliable sources with significant coverage- however you indicate that you added all available sources. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Thank you for your comment - it is much appreciated. Please, in this case, reconsider and publish our draft as a subsection in the Lufthansa Cargo page, as our activity is related to theirs. Of course, I can do it, but I kindly ask for your guidance. Thank you very much, I appreciate your effort. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo6dan at heyworld (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bo6dan at heyworld Please visit Talk:Lufthansa Cargo and propose an edit request(click for instructions), detailing the addition you wish to make. My suggestion would be to not merely propose what you wrote in the draft, but simply the best sourced content that you have. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot (talk) Thank you very much, I will do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo6dan at heyworld (talk • contribs) 11:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:57, 11 January 2022 review of submission by Dubbalgurdeep


Dubbalgurdeep (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dubbalgurdeep You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:52, 11 January 2022 review of draft by 2402:3A80:6D9:EEC5:8A:525B:88CB:3598


The actress seems to comply WP:ENT now, please re-review. Thanks. 2402:3A80:6D9:EEC5:8A:525B:88CB:3598 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:44, 11 January 2022 review of draft by JohnMoss67


Hello David Thanks for your helpful comments, I am learning the ropes here on Wikipedia. It's not easy, but actually quite enjoyable.. The person I am creating a wiki site for is a working, clinical hospital doctor in palliative and hospice care. His Professor title with the University is on a teaching and speaker basis mainly (yes, some research and publications, too, but it is more of a brief to improve understanding about end of life care issues for the general public). One of the reasons to create a Wikipedia profile is just that, to get more palliative care nurses, doctors and even social workers into prominent, wider societal discussion of what to look out for in terminal illness and last months/years of life. Yes, the References do indeed contain book chapter references. If the citation rule is that strict then Perhaps it is better if, as you suggested, "WP:GNG" is a better starting point. Am happy to edit and change if someone were kind enough to critique it against this standard, rather than the WP:Prof one. Should i delete it all and resubmit? I am not sure how to submit it as WP:GNG. In many ways, in a small specialty like palliative care, most influential workers will not get to such a high citation count as those who are more laboratory based, however the work is not really diminished and still highly relevant. Some of the patient testimonials that have been published about palliative care. thank you for your time, JM JohnMoss67 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnMoss67: I made some minor syntax and formatting improvements to the draft. I think the speaker engagement section is overkill - if you can only source a speaking engagement to a program guide, that's not notable. TED talks are notable - was Taubert's covered in the media? It should be something that was notable enough that it was covered by the media. And I agree with DGG that he doesn't meet WP:SCHOLAR due to the limited citations, but do believe that the other items including the notability for the Bowie letter and his efforts to raise awareness of palliative care are promising in terms of noteworthiness. Each item by itself wouldn't be enough, but all together they may be enough. At this point you should tighten the sourcing by drawing focus to the best media coverage of him, and less to third party (non-media) sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:35, 11 January 2022 review of draft by Mehmet Üsküdarlı


Hello,

I am requesting for my draft "Zeynep Rade" to be deleted. The subject person in question of the article wishes for the articles' removal due to inaccuracies, consequently as the original creator I do not wish to see "Zeynep Rade" as a Wikitia link on search. I am unfamiliar with this platform as a result am forwarding this request to you.

If it may be of any help, I was previously in correspondance with a administrator called "KylieTastic".

Respectfully, Mehmet Andrew


Mehmet Üsküdarlı (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested speedy deletion for you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have zero connexion to Wikitia. If you have issues with content Wikitia has mirrored, take it up with Wikitia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


January 12

02:50:31, 12 January 2022 review of submission by XDataDoctorX


XDataDoctorX (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


There is no reason provided for rejection. Why is this page being rejected and can you tell me what is the basis for it?

Let me know if you need more details or info for the review.

XDataDoctorX (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Goodwraith why are you rejecting a genuine page?

XDataDoctorX (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What edit would you recommend?

04:53:50, 12 January 2022 review of submission by XDataDoctorX


XDataDoctorX (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I have edited the information and made sure details provided reflect a neutral perspective and remain helpful for readers.

Please reconsider.

@XDataDoctorX: Article draft has been deleted for being unambiguous advertising or promotion. Please read WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:GNG. Also, please only post your questions once - it only adds more work for other editors to respond. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:03:57, 12 January 2022 review of submission by Lisajoer

I wrote an article about someone who is very notable in my country. The only problem is the interviews and media coverage that he has done don't have these copies online. Hence making it hard for me to add these sources. What can i do or how does the wikipedia community help with this. The notable person i wrote about is GeorDavie Kasambale from Tanzania. A country that does not have a tendency of having e-copies of media coverage in general. Can i please get help on this. Thank you!!

Lisajoer (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisajoer: Draft:GeorDavie Moses Kasambale has been deleted [[1]] as being unambiguous advertising. There's no way to overcome sourcing requirements. If someone is notable, someone will write about them - that's all there is to it. Otherwise this becomes another Facebook or TikTok. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:00, 12 January 2022 review of submission by 12.196.94.51


12.196.94.51 (talk) 08:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATED all references! Kale My Name is quite quite popular! Review please ! They should have a page!

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. An article(not a "page") is not a way to honor something. An article must summarize independent reliable sources showing how the topic is notable. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:54:58, 12 January 2022 review of submission by Lisajoer

Can i add a forum page as a reference source. Lisajoer (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisajoer: Article draft has been speedily deleted [[2]] due to not showing the notability of the subject. To answer your question, forum pages are generally not considered reliable sources, since they are user generated. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:58, 12 January 2022 review of submission by Dadu1212


Dadu1212 (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arfius_Al-din that article should remove from deleation process and need to improvment. Please help to do that.

@Dadu1212: Please don't post the same issue multiple times. You'll have to discuss at the deletion discussion (see link below). TechnoTalk (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:09:20, 12 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Dadu1212



Dadu1212 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arfius_Al-din need help for improvement[reply]

@Dadu1212: Preexisting article Arfius Al-din has been nominated for deletion. Please discuss at the AfD page. Please also see WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:31, 12 January 2022 review of draft by Vladdy Daddy Silly

is my article long enough? What do you think about the military template, do i need to improve it?

Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladdy Daddy Silly: It's long enough for an article, but not much more than a stub. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about military history will help. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:35, 12 January 2022 review of draft by Hashusmani86


Hi. I am new to wikipedia and as per my councelor I need to help others to help myself. I am constantly making edits on wikipedia and now I have decided to make pages of people and companies of my country, Pakistan. ProPakistani is one of the news websites that I read and it was surprising for me to see that they don't have a wiki page. Now i have tried my level best to edit the page and the company itself is quite notable. I hope the submission is approved. Please let me know if i go wrong somewhere. Writing to seek guidance. I wish to create many pages of Pakistan because they should be there. I hope my journey is a healthy and fruitful one. Hashusmani86 (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hashusmani86 Wikipedia has articles, not "wiki pages". The Awards section describes things that the staff of this publisher did, and are not about the publisher itself. These do not establish the notability of the publisher. The mere fact that others cite this publisher also does not establish the notability of the publisher. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. It is insufficient to merely describe what the company does. Please read Your First Article.
Is there any particular reason that you created a different account than the one you created the draft under? 331dot (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting me for Wikipedia Articles. I hope to use the correct terminology moving forward. I see what you mean about the stark difference in achievements of the staff and the publisher itself. As said earlier, I seek guidance to edit, create and help the wikipedia community and play my minor role in that. I still haven't published the edits and this is my only account. When I started making the page for "ProPakistani" this draft was already there. So I'm making changes to it, whilst seeking your guidance, and hoping to submit it properly and accordingly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashusmani86 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hashusmani86 Your account has not actually edited the draft yet, according to your edit history, but you say that you did. This is why I thought you had another account. If you do, or you have an association with the other account, please be honest about it. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing but I havent published the changes. Before publishing I reached out to you for guidance. So you won't be able to see any edits. I have absolutely no association or affiliation to any of the pages I have edited in the past, or the ones I'm trying to create. I do however seek your guidance. I have removed the awards section. Was that the only concern for this particular page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashusmani86 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) As per your guidance, I have made alterations. I hope the current submission is correctly done. I hope the submission is in accordance to the wikipedia criteria of an article. Your feedback is required. I hope to be working on my second article for Pakistani company/person (notable) each day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashusmani86 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hashusmani86 That helps, but the article now does little more than tell of the existence of the company. "92nd most visited website" is not really significant. You need to have signficant coverage of this company- independent reliable sources that do more than merely tell of the existence of the company or what it does. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

> Sure. Let me gather some more information. Since this is my first article and I know that the organization is notable enough to have a wikipedia page, I'd like to find a bit more and resubmit. Thanks for all your support. Also, please feel free to let me know if there's an individual, an organization or a subject that requires an article from Pakistan and I'd love to contribute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashusmani86 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:21:00, 12 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Frankum62

John Burgess (record producer) 

I have tried to write a page for JOHN BURGESS British record producer and co owner of AIR STUDIOS with Sir George Martin, but my article has been declined many times. Please could somebody help me to get the page published. The subject is notable, as was a very well known individul in the record business during the 1960s onward with many credits to his name, so I think it is something I am doing incorrectly in my writing that is getting it rejected. Johns family and colleagues would be very grateful for any help. Thank you


Frankum62 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankum62 The good news is that reviewers think that this person is indeed notable, so you are halfway there with that. The main issues seem to be the sources offered. Please review the comments left by reviewers. If the sourcing can be improved, it will likely be accepted. I would start by simply summarizing the three best sources that you can find; that is all that is needed to pass the AFC process. Don't necessarily worry about any other content. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:10, 12 January 2022 review of submission by PACchar

Hello I recently had a new entry declined for Plymouth Arts Cinema. The reason given was:

"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 organizations and companies). 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 created the page to differentiate from Plymouth Arts Centre. Plymouth Arts Centre has now closed but has a history worth keeping on Wikipedia I believe. The organisation is now an independent cinema only, Plymouth Arts Cinema, and is based at a different location. It is still making a cultural contribution to Plymouth. I attached an article from Plymouth Live about the move. The feedback mentioned more references. Is there anything you can suggest? More newspaper articles? Or mentions elsewhere on the web?

Thanks

--PACchar (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC) PACchar (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PACchar Wikipedia articles about organizations summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You offer a single source; to pass this process there should be at least three independent sources summarized. I am curious as to why you don't simply edit the existing article, if the organization still technically exists? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Hi, thanks that is very helpful. I would edit the existing page but I don't think I can change the name of the page, which would be essential. PACchar (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PACchar Changing the title requires a page move; you may request one at Requested Moves if the new name is the most common way your organization is referred to now(see WP:COMMONNAME); it isn't necessarily enough that it be the current name(though it may be in this case). As you have a conflict of interest, you should make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing the changes you wish to make. An independent editor will review your request. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dotThanks, I have requested the name change and will request it to be edited when this is apporved PACchar (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:15, 12 January 2022 review of submission by Ak39720G


Dear Reviewer, Please help me understand why my draft was rejected? It is referenced and does not contain advertisement or promotional material as I am not affiliated with the company. The intention was to share information since I came across them on LinkedIn and found what they do interesting. Being relatively new to Wikipedia editing and articles, I ensured I only included information that was published by reputed news publications and cited everything accordingly. I am keen to understand how I may improve the article to meet Wiki guidelines. Thank you for your time, A Ak39720G (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ak39720G Rejection means that the article cannot be improved. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Wikipedia is not a place to merely share information or merely tell about a company and what they do. The sources you offered describe routine business activities, which does not establish the notability of the company. Much of the draft tells about the staff of the company, which does not establish the notability of the company itself.
That's an unusual way to find topics to write about. Do you work in the financial tech industry? 331dot (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:18, 12 January 2022 review of draft by Geo1953


Geo1953 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Regarding the article "Your submission at Articles for creation: Christoforos Krokidis (January 12)" . Chtistoforos Krokidis has references in wikipedia in Ibanez where his name is pronounced as Christoforos Krokidis and in the article about Vassilis Papakonstantinou , where his name is pronounced Christophoros Krokides. I would like to ask your help 1: should I change the Article Mame as Christophoros Krokides 2: should I continue editing the article as it is using the above 2 references as external links 3: There are several articles and interviews in Greek radio stations and websites but in Greek language 1 2 3 4 Looking forward for your help regarding the article[reply]

21:06:25, 12 January 2022 review of draft by George-Amherst


I would like to add a table to an article I have just submitted through my sandbox, titled "The Musee francais ... / Napoleon ... / Royal. The table is very extensive, consisting of 500 lines and 8 columns. To have it on the Internet in Wikipedia will be very useful for many people. How is a table dropped into at Wikipedia article?

George-Amherst (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:12, 12 January 2022 review of draft by 2601:183:857E:3830:EDDC:E4F1:B6CA:E9E9


Cannot comprehend language in declined report. Also, need help replacing certain words that fit request. Am somewhat surprised article was not approved, as many others on wikipedia have similar language, and lesser subjects, which are approved. 2601:183:857E:3830:EDDC:E4F1:B6CA:E9E9 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That an article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. Not everyone is required to use this process, and this process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed. This, among other reasons, is why the existence of particular articles has no bearing on the existence of other articles. Please see other stuff exists. It is possible to get inapproriate articles by us, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. If you would like to help out, you may identify these other similar articles you have seen for possible action. We can only address what we know about. If you are using other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
Regarding your draft, the subject appears to be notable, so you are really almost there. The issue seems to be mostly related to the tone of the article and perhaps some(either) clearer or additional sourcing. Looking at some other good-classified articles should help you better judge the tone. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

02:19:12, 13 January 2022 review of submission by Ktrhny

Hi! Please review this article one more time. 2 links was removed. Ktrhny (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:01:01, 13 January 2022 review of submission by AnthonyWayne155


I don't know why Wikipedia rejected the articles I wrote about GDRP's history, what it is, and why it's vital to society. AnthonyWayne155 (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't accept blatantly obvious advertizement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:15, 13 January 2022 review of submission by Ktrhny

Please review changes. Thanks! Ktrhny (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ktrhny. The subject is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a stand alone article). Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you've written. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:10, 13 January 2022 review of draft by Paul Peens


Hi, I am struggling to upload jpeg. pictures and our logo with this article. I have read the tutorials pages and followed the instructions very meticulously with no success. I have renamed the pictures to something very specific to our school but still nothing. I was really hoping to get someone to help me upload the pictures. It is 3 jpeg images I took with my own camera and would like to appear as Thumbs next to the article. The page that directs one to someone who will create the article for me also just takes me back to "create new article." So I am attempting to do it myself but am open to suggestions...


Paul Peens (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother until you get the sourcing for this page sorted. The images are not going to help the draft at all. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:50:37, 13 January 2022 review of submission by Rafa Garcia Aguado


I am requesting assistance because: - I tried to add some information on Wikipedia about CUE Podgorica. - On 18th November you texted me saying that the info was too commercial and needed to be more historical. - I adapted the text twice to make it as Wikipedia wish but got no answers and text is not published.

What should I do next? please I need your help. thanks,

Rafa Garcia Aguado If you feel you have addressed the concerns given to you, you may resubmit the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:03, 13 January 2022 review of submission by 103.103.33.42

Hello sir. How can I make it perfect and get it approved? 103.103.33.42 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been removed as advertising. There was no way in its present form that it would be acceptable to Wikipedia. See WP:PROMO. TechnoTalk (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:56, 13 January 2022 review of draft by Arthistorygirl202


Hello, I am assisting with creating a wiki page for a highly acclaimed artist and would like for the page to be taken out of the draft stages. It has been flagged as using non-reliable sources which is not the case, considering the information was gained from an interview with the artist that has been published online and is cited as a course. Please take down the flags for the citations and draft stage or let me know how to do so.

Thank You. Arthistorygirl202 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistorygirl202 Interviews are not an independent reliable source, and not acceptable for establishing notability. The flag is correct. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you called a flag was the decline message from a reviewer, it must remain until and if the draft is accepted. "Flag" usually refers to a maintenance tag on an article. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:46, 13 January 2022 review of submission by Favour Enom

please revie w this i didnt make any mistake Favour Enom (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:38, 13 January 2022 review of submission by Calvinn1


I am posting here because the last variation of my draft was not accepted into the main space for supposedly "passing mention" in the sources. The article contains a review from a well-known critic, charts, and other media publications that describe the person and some nominations in as much detail as possible. Ranks 4th as the most followed Likee blogger. And this is also confirmed by an authoritative source in the article. Collectively significant as a blogger and singer.

Calvinn1 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinn1NewsMuz is the only source that shows any notability. Interviews, Awards (Unless a Grammy or equivalen), Bios do not confer notability. Also, while not a criteria here, she is 11, maybe let a kid be a kid without having a wikipedia page follow them for the rest of their lives.Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter, what does age have to do with it? Letidor won the Runet Prize in 2013, which is why it is very authoritative. The owner of Letidor is a well-known company Rambler. 7 days is also a very famous media, they describe her biography in full. And in general, being in the top position in a well-known application is strong, and this is confirmed by the source. Calvinn1 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Calvinn1I said that part was a personal opinion and has no bearing on the articles merits. No idea what Letidor and Runet have to do with this article. Back to the merits, 7 Day is useless for Wikipedia as its an unsigned bio page, not something ever used as a reliable source on wikipedia plus read heavily promotional and likely had input by the subject or her agents.Slywriter (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Letidor remains a fairly authoritative site. About 7 days, I can not answer anything. By the way, NEWSmuz.com also confirms the popularity of the blogger in Likee. Do you really not consider it significant to be one of the most famous in a global application? Also in the article there are charts from BandLink. Calvinn1 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its an interview with her mom, does not confer notability. Neither do charts.Slywriter (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in the same place, after all, the article was not written entirely in the form of an interview :) Less than half of the article is an interview. And for some reason you sidestep the fact that Likee is famous and the charts. Calvinn1 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charts DO NOT confer notability. No side-step. Third time I've said it now. And it's an interview and no its not half interview/ half article. Likee being popular also not really meaningful. Wikipedia cares about independent reliable sources. You generally can not create notability with primary sources. Finding better sources and resubmit is a much more fruitful use of everyone's time than trying to convince reviewers that your sources are special when they have already taken the time to look and found them lacking.Slywriter (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks :) Calvinn1 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict, what I get for being long-winded) I don't see the relevance of a Runet Prize either. It was awarded to "SUP Media - Letidor project" in the category "Safe Runet". It isn't clear what the SUP Media - Letidor project was, or in what way it was safe (safe from hackers, safe for children, a safe space for expression?). Whatever the answers are, the prize clearly has nothing to do with whether Letidor has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, in other words, whether it is a reliable source.
Some content in the magazine 7 Days may be reliable, but the draft cites their "Encyclopedia of Stars", a sub-section of their "Stars" section, next to "Gossip Column", "Private Life", and "Ratings". This looks like tabloid journalism of the sort that Wikipedia does not consider reliable. On all of ru.wikipedia.org, 7days.ru/stars/bio is cited only 2-3 times, suggesting that Russian-speaking Wikipedians don't think much of it as a source.
NEWSmuz.com is a blog self-published by "Guru Ken". If he's a subject matter expert, you may cite it for his opinion, but under no circumstances may you cite it for matters of fact about a living person, doing so is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. Popularity in a social media app such as Likee has nothing to do with notability. BandLink is not an acceptable chart on Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:33, 13 January 2022 review of draft by 103.199.69.109


103.199.69.109 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but have you considered just adding this short draft as a new section to Internet Society? TechnoTalk (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:18, 13 January 2022 review of draft by JackCanada1970


Hello - I am working to get this page finalized and OK for publishing. I think we have now cleaned it up and ensured that it meets the burden needed to be considered to be notable, but I would welcome a look over by an experienced editor. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Alexa_Swinton

JackCanada1970 (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JackCanada1970: - When you say we, if you're referring to working with RolfeSwinton, you may have to declare a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. WP:NACTOR requires that the person have significant roles in multiple shows. I've not watched the series And Just Like That so can't judge whether Alexa's role is significant, but hopefully others can. TechnoTalk (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi - no I meant edits made by myself and by BD2414 - the last two people to edit this.

Thanks TechnoTalk! And re significant roles - having the lead of one ABC show, and then a key recurring character in another (And Just Like That) + leading role in a major feature film seem to more than meet that standard compared to other actors I looked up. For example - Robert Bailey Jr who was another cast member in Emergence. Thanks again for input and feedback - reviewed your edits and I understand what you did - very nice cleaning up - much tighter and removing of extraneous text! JackCanada1970 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JackCanada1970. I see some real problems with that draft. For example, one of her roles is is described as "groundbreaking", an extraordinary claim that is cited to the headline (never a reliable source) of an interview of her (not a reliable, independent source). The "groundbreaking" claim is attributed to "the media", which is a plural term. A single headline is not "the media". Where are the reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Swinton as a person and an actor? Please see WP:THREE and mention your three best sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

08:18:58, 14 January 2022 review of submission by Nanou


Hello, I'm wondering why the submission has been so many declined. I have many times little correction on that, according to your request. For instance: As reliable source, I have put the reference - inline citations of "VOGUE JAPAN", "Deutsches Theater which is famous national theater in Germany","headheritage.co.uk by Julian Cope in UK", I would say it's properly proofed.

Could you kindly let me know what should I so further? i.e. I should use title "Satoshi Okamoto" instead of "sub-tle." (which is his solo project name) etc.

Nanou (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanou, Is the article about a project or a performer? On sourcing, I haven't looked too deeply but the few links I did click look like passing mentions. Subject could be notable but would be best served by a short article with 3 quality in-depth independent references so a reviewer can more easily see notability. If you think there are three sources that clearly establish notability, include them as a comment or on the talk page of the draft.Slywriter (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:10, 14 January 2022 review of submission by Pryi1499

Please guide me as to how can I improve the draft Symbiosis Institute of Management Studies, Pune for acceptance. Pryi1499 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pryi1499 You can't, rejection means it cannot be improved sufficiently. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct that this business school's most notable alumni are claimed to be a model, a snooker player and an actor, and that the assertion that these people are alumni remains unreferenced? If I am seeing things right, this draft has fatal flaws. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:28:38, 14 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2405:201:E00C:6106:2098:6F1E:B96E:617E



2405:201:E00C:6106:2098:6F1E:B96E:617E (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riding 126 kilometers on a bicycle is not a plausible claim of notability. Having notable relatives is not a plausible claim of notability. Your draft completely fails to make a compelling case that this person is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:01, 14 January 2022 review of draft by Metz2020


I am being told that my references are not valid. It is unclear to me what the decision making process is because your protocols are not equitable. This is not the first time that this request has been denied. My understanding is that in the first request, the references used -linked back to the website of Mount Eden Vineyards- were not acceptable because they were listed on the site. Which is confusing because as I did my research for other California wineries listed on Wikipedia they used this same reference process. I on the other hand used the correct process in which sited the source from other websites. Since a source for a reference such as WineSpectator.com requires you to be a member to see the source you cannot actually see it, but it is housed on the wineries website but what I am told by Wiki from the last time I tried to get this published is that was not acceptable.

So how do I fix the reference issue and get this page published?

Metz2020 (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was declined because company is not notable, the content is entirely promotional and copied and pasted from https://www.mounteden.com/ has been deleted multiple times before and should be salted to stop further attempts. Theroadislong (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metz2020, I disagree a little bit with Theroadislong because I think this winery might possibly be notable. I have written and expanded several winery articles. However, the current draft is fatally flawed because it contains extensive copyright violations which simply are not allowed on Wikipedia. The quality of the referencing is poor. Sources written by former employees of the winery are of almost no value. Passing mentions of the winery are of no value. Major sections of the draft are unreferenced and written in a promotional style. These are not minor problems. They are severe problems. I recommend that you read and study Your first article and start fresh. Find several published reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to this winery. Figuratively "forget" everything that you know about the winery and everything that the winery says about itself on its website and in its press releases. Neutrally summarize what those reliable independent sources say, and do not include anything that is not verified by the cited sources. Then, you will have a fighting chance to have the article accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH nominated at MfD

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js/core.js

This may be of interest to some. (If there is a better location for this, feel free to move)Slywriter (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

01:33:39, 15 January 2022 review of submission by JoshFromLetsGameItOut

Why did you reject my article? It's true and you can't prove otherwise.

JoshFromLetsGameItOut (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't up to us to prove it, it is up to you to prove it with independent reliable sources. If you just want to fool around, do it elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello , JoshFromLetsGameItOut. I assume that this is about the deleted Draft:The Hammeth, which was a hoax and a complete pile of crap. Persisting with stuff like this is disruptive editing. Change your way now or you will be blocked. Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:35:58, 15 January 2022 review of draft by AssumeGoodWraith


Do you guys also think I should wait until this game is released? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:52:53, 15 January 2022 review of submission by Kaempff

Do I need to add more references? Or is the fact that this isn't an authorized album release the problem? Thanks! Kaempff (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)kaempff Kaempff (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:34:35, 15 January 2022 review of submission by Himanshu Narendrabhai Patel


Himanshu Narendrabhai Patel (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Narendrabhai Patel You do not ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. There already seems to be an article about the topic you wrote about. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:52, 15 January 2022 review of submission by Rumesh D


Rumesh D (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumesh D You do not ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:21, 15 January 2022 review of submission by Daniel.halkin

hello freind about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DirectDL I add references for the article. please confirm the article. Daniel.halkin (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel.halkin The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article does not just tell of the existence of a topic and what it does; it summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel.halkin Please do not copy your submission here, it is linked to above. As you have been told, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: daniel.halkin is an obvious sock of Special:Contributions/DirectDL.cc who was hardblocked (I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DirectDL.cc before seeing this). Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:52, 15 January 2022 review of draft by Smithykit


Smithykit (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! Can i ask how i move a page that i'm in the process of drafting, into the space where it won't be deleted if i don't amend it for a while? Smithykit (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1065818481"