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 Nautilus126 (talk | contribs) at 10:36, 28 May 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


May 22

01:48:03, 22 May 2022 review of submission by Wbaregr

Why don't you guys enjoy my article? Wbaregr (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of it was actually factual. This is an encyclopedia about notable topics, not somewhere to write fictions about people. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:46:08, 22 May 2022 review of draft by Dinoman747


This is my first time creating an article and I'm having trouble figuring out how to use the taxobox. The issues pertain to formatting within the taxobox template:

1) In the taxobox, the Genus "Palaehoplophorus" shouldn't be hyperlinked, because this is the page for that genus. 2) Under the "Type species," the text isn't bold like it is when this template is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. 3) Also under the "Type species" heading, the obelus symbol (†), denoting an extinct taxa, is not showing up. 4) Lastly, the species list should be automatically italicized, but that isn't working either.

I'm sure there is obvious stuff I'm overlooking that would fix these, so I really appreciate any help!

Dinoman747 (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dinoman747, I suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology where editors experienced with creating and maintaining articles relating to the field can provide guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try there, thank you! Dinoman747 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:33:01, 22 May 2022 review of draft by Bob isat


Just submitting a review for this draft:

However, i did not correctly filled the reviewing topic, which should be "organzation" instead of "other".

Possible to change it after submitting the review ?

Bob isat (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob isat Yes, you may continue to edit the draft even after submission. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft article Draft:Anticor already exists. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:38, 22 May 2022 review of draft by 142.112.175.48


How many sources do I need for my draft? 142.112.175.48 (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no set number, but generally to pass this process an article should summarize at least three reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many out of the six sources are reliable? 142.112.175.48 (talk) 16:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, the sources will be assessed when the draft is reviewed but see the reliable sources guideline for additional information. Given Proeremotherium was accepted is a good sign you are on the right track, assuming you were the creator. You may also want to check out WikiProject Palaeontology. S0091 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do I check the talk page or the main wikiproject page? 142.112.175.48 (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either may provide helpful tips/guidance about editing the topic in general. You are also welcome to ask questions there as well that are not specific to the AfC process. For example if you are not sure a particular source is reliable the project is likely a better place to go than here but if your draft is declined then here is the place to ask about the decline. If your draft is accepted and you want to know how to expand the article or make other improvements, the project is the place ask (the AfC process is complete at that point). If your not sure where is the best place while it is still a draft, start here. (Please do not ask the same question is both places). I hope this helps. S0091 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:28, 22 May 2022 review of submission by 2A00:23C6:9C8E:8D01:7827:BA34:ECCB:EAEB


2A00:23C6:9C8E:8D01:7827:BA34:ECCB:EAEB (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please learn more about Wikipedia by reading the Five Pillars, Your First Article, and the notability guidelines for people. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, and I'm genuinely curious as to what it might be? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:42, 22 May 2022 review of draft by Bumbertwister


Please note that "Eric Talley" is my name -- I am a Chaired Professor at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Law School Wikipedia page also lists me as one of its prominent faculty members, and that page even contains a hyperlink over my name. However, if one follows that link it takes you to a page describing a dead police officer, who was one of the victims of the 2021 Boulder murders. This is wrong, and it is misleading to readers. It also upset my mother (the greatest sin of all).

So, I kindly request that you (a) link to the stub wiki entry I created (after you approve it); or (b) stop misleading your readers into thinking that I am a dead cop.

Best Regards Eric Talley

Bumbertwister (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bumbertwister. I just saw that you left a comment here. I already put a comment on your talk page. I have removed the link from the Columbia Law School for the time being. It appears that the redirect for the the late Eric Talley was created some time after the link was added to the school's article. They were almost certainly unaware that a link existed elsewhere in reference to another person. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the quick reply. Maybe you guys can put a "dummy" or stub link on my name, as several of my other colleagues listed on that page have?
I'm not really sure how this is done, and I figure I got tagged b/c the page I submitted was about me. (I have resisted the many propositions I get from people who are willing -- for a fee -- to write Wikipedia pages for me; seems like a scam). 160.39.34.161 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bumbertwister: If you are referring to the red links, those are links which go to pages that currently do not exist. Your name would have appeared the same until earlier this year when somebody created a redirect for the late police officer. For your second question, yes. The people offering to make an article about you for money are scammers. This is mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Wikipedia gets money via donations, but it never asks for money in exchange for creating an article. For the vast majority of us, our editing is 100% volunteered. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and accepted the draft as he's notable by WP:NPROF and the draft is so short that COI issues are non-existent. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

13:08:09, 23 May 2022 review of submission by PavanKishoreG

This page belongs a young, dynamic & honest politician from Tamilnadu, India. He belongs to the current ruling party. The name is Bharatiya Janata Party. Its very important that the Wiki page of this Gentleman is up and running. PavanKishoreG (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your question, @PavanKishoreG? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The Above page Annamalai Kuppusamy is not getting published. Need help to get it published PavanKishoreG (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PavanKishoreG: this has been previously recreated so many times that the title has been protected. It has been deleted following an AfD discussion. Now several reviewers have looked at the latest draft, and it has been rejected. You should consider this the end of the road for this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:30, 23 May 2022 review of draft by Luciasteele


Hello Owlf, I am trying to creating entries for our journal, as I found similar sister publication listed in wikipedia. I am not very experienced, but I have created new introductory texts, which - like in this case - are not accepted. However, it is basically the journal presentation, I cannot say different things. What I don't understand is why a similar entry by a previous publisher of this journal was accepted (obviously, as it is an entry in Wiki: Drug_Target_Insights Could you guide me in making this new entry possible? Thank you for your help. Lucia

Luciasteele (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Luciasteele: apart from the stated decline reason (promotional tone), this draft also fails for having no referencing, and therefore not establishing the notability of the subject — both cardinal sins in the world of Wikipedia. You need reliable sources to support all the material statements made (see WP:REFB), and for those sources to be independent and provide significant coverage of the subject, to demonstrate notability (see WP:GNG). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoubleGrazing, I see what you mean. so it would be relevant that this notation was made from an independent supporter of the journal, right? as my guideline was Drug Target Insights (where I also suggested edits which were accepted) how was this started initially? is it possible to find out?
thanks a million!
Lucia Luciasteele (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but just to say that I wouldn't too much look to the Drug Target Insights article as the standard to aspire to, because I'm not at all sure that it meets the notability criteria WP:GNG / WP:JOURNALCRIT either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:20, 23 May 2022 review of draft by Ashimneupaney


Where do I need to make changes? Can you please pinpoint it? I have added a few independent sources too in the article. If you still have doubt about Nepal Live Today, you can check the website at nepallivetoday.com. It is an independent English-language news portal in Nepal, and has been covering news from Nepal and beyond. If the article still doesn't meet the guidelines of Wikipedia, please put the article for deletion. Thank you.


Ashimneupaney (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:09, 23 May 2022 review of submission by PenneSardi


We made some further changes to the page for review. Is there anything specific we can remove or add to allow the page to be published? This page seems to fit a standard of information as related to other restaurants so we are not sure what information is not accurate or backed up by a source? Eg. Maggiano's Little Italy, Bojangles (restaurant), Prezzo (restaurant) - This page sites awards and positive information about the company?

Please help!

PenneSardi (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Accounts are strictly single person use only. The draft is just blatant advertising, it was rejected, it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:58:44, 23 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SleepyWhippet


I am very confused how I could have described this festival and what it entails in any more neutral a tone or point of view than I already have. So I guess that's the first thing I seem to struggle with around here: I don't know how to sufficiently describe various facets of a subject in a way that gives a comprehensive account, without it somehow coming off as "advertising" to your reviewers.

Furthermore, there seems to be an an issue with the references I provided. However, two of them are The New York Times, another is a leading design publication, and the only reference made to a publication that was put out by the city of New York is about matter of fact pieces of info. So again, I struggle to understand, what could be considered more reliable than these sources. SleepyWhippet (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“The festival is an eclectic mix of independently hosted exhibitions” and “the festival highlights a wide gamut of design related fields and activites” sound VERY promotional in tone. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong I guess that's my struggle, it is in fact quite eclectic and does indeed cover many types of design fields. So while I understand those attributes can be interpreted as promotional, sometimes they are just facts. How does one say them on wikipedia? I did try to reword that very sentence just now, but I'm still not sure if that's neutral enough for WP. SleepyWhippet (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the answer is we don't say them! Wkipedia just requires the dry facts with no adjectives. Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong thank you, that actually has been the clearest instruction I've received thus far! SleepyWhippet (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:35:05, 23 May 2022 review of draft by Kostaru76


Kostaru76 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but what exactly is not correct with my sources? I used Harvard referencing style and sources are from Google scholar. These are academic and peer-reviewed journals. Thank you for your time! Looking forward to your guidance and support!

Kostaru76 The issue is not the sources you have used, but much of the draft appears to be unsourced. If the unsourced portions are supported by the existing sources, you need more inline citations. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:38:08, 23 May 2022 review of submission by 2601:240:DB7F:F8D0:4438:686F:16CE:F6D1

Greetings! I am William S. Bike, and I am asking you to reconsider your rejection of my draft of a Linda Howe page for Wikipedia, and that you will allow it to be posted.

You called Ms. Howe not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like to respectfully disagree with this point. Ms. Howe is the author of four books—two with Sounds True Publishing and one with Hay House, which are major publishers in the self-help genre. Her fifth book will be published next month by yet another publisher, Modern Wisdom Press. Her books are therefore desirable among competitive publishers. Her book How to Read the Akashic Records is ranked #65 in the Parapsychology category on Amazon.com. Ms. Howe has sold thousands of books over the years. She therefore is a significant author.

Ms. Howe is the first person to make the Akashic Records (a subject long ago accepted for a listing on Wikipedia) accessible to the masses in several countries. She therefore is a significant pathbreaker. Since Wikipedia has that entry on the Akashic Records, if the Akashic Records are a significant enough subject for Wikipedia to allow an entry on it, it seems logical that a top author of books on the subject should be included on Wikipedia as well.

She also is one of the leading teachers of the Akashic Records in the world, having taught thousands of students in several countries. This makes her internationally significant.

Ms. Howe has won four awards from the Coalition of Visionary Resources, making her acknowledged as a significant figure from an important outside organization.

Let me give you some information about my own credentials. I’ve been successfully posting on Wikipedia for about 15 years. I am a career journalist and media expert. I’ve been published in over 65 venues, including the Chicago Sun-Times and university publications at Loyola University Chicago, DePaul University, the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois Chicago, the University of Illinois Springfield, and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I’ve been published in several peer-reviewed/refereed journals: the Delta Epsilon Sigma Journal, Nine: A Journal of Baseball History and Social Policy Perspectives, and the Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies. I have appeared on CNN, and been quoted in Forbes, USA Today, Epoch Times, and other major media. I am the author of four books. I’ve earned more than 60 journalism awards, including the Peter Lisagor Award—the top honor in Chicago journalism. As a career journalist, media commentator, and contributor to referred journals, I understand the importance of accurate and viable sourcing and information, and I believe sources and information about Ms. Howe are sound.

Wikipedia already has an entry on Linda Moulton Howe, a journalist and film maker who covers aliens, cow mutilation, and crop circle conspiracies. I believe differentiating two authors who happen to have similar names is important to both of them.

So I hope you will reconsider rejection of this article about Ms. Howe and allow it to be published. I would welcome any advice about suggested changes that will help the article be accepted for Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope you have a great week!

2601:240:DB7F:F8D0:4438:686F:16CE:F6D1 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for the draft are, as the reviewer notes, inappropriate. No amount of editing can fix that. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are dire, the tone is inappropriate and the awards are not notable Second Runner-Up Award? Theroadislong (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a single review of any of her books in a reliable third party publication, you can add the book with source to the Akashic Records article in a "Literature" section immediately after the history section. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:23:02, 23 May 2022 review of submission by Ximeesc

Can someone help me check if my sources are following the criteria correctly? I want to prove that my submission qualifies for a Wikipedia article and that all the sources are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject but also show significant coverage. Thank you. Ximeesc (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - I'm helping TechnoTalk (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

06:12:05, 24 May 2022 review of submission by SocialPerson Acro


SocialPerson Acro (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SocialPerson Acro I assume this is about Draft:Acropoliis Design Management Group. You don't ask a question. You have resubmitted the draft. Your username suggests an association with this business, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. If your username is meant to indicate a position at your company, it will need to be changed at Special:GlobalRenameRequest; usernames cannot be that of a position or otherwise indicate they are shared. 331dot (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24 May 2022 review of submission by Kamariazaleka

hi,

Looking for help editing this, as it sounds more like an advertisement as opposed to a biography~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamariazaleka (talk • contribs) 08:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Prisca Kamaria McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your edit. Kamariazaleka (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:54:04, 24 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Afromherz


Hi! I've been working on a new article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:EverCrypt). Thanks to advice from different reviewers, this article was improved through several iterations. I'm curious about how I can check that it fits the different Wikipedia policies before submitting it again to avoid taking time from editors if I'm missing something obvious. Are there any automated tools for this/further advice that is not already on the wiki?

Thanks!

Afromherz (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Afromherz: You're doing it right by asking here. Make sure every single thing is sourced by a reliable third party source, or remove it. WP:RS Put refs after punctuation. MOS:PF Sentence case for section names. MOS:HEAD Read WP:YFA. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:01, 24 May 2022 review of submission by Michron777


Hello. I was wondering if it is possible for this submission to be changed from rejected to denied instead. At least in this case, the major changes I have made could be considered.

Michron777 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michron777 For that, you must appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"to help children know the Holy Bible and grow up with desirable role models" is totally unacceptable proselytizing, the rest is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that an article could be written about this show; but this blatant advertisement is not it. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:31, 24 May 2022 review of submission by Arshuspeaks

I have added more reliable and valueable sources to prove the person notability.

Arshuspeaks (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC) Arshuspeaks (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written and poorly sourced autobiography, with no chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:43, 24 May 2022 review of submission by 80sloVerS1

A page for singer Stacey Jackson was put up for deletion back in Oct 2021 as some parts were judged as too promotional. We didn't know back then and couldn't amend anything so it has since been fully deleted, but we now have realised and would like to revive or re-start a page. Stacey Jackson is on Sky TV weekly and is a singer/songwriter, who, although has a PR team, is in the public eye organically too. How can I get a page back up for her profile? Thank you for any help 80sloVerS1 (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero "pages" or "profiles" on Wikipedia, we have articles on notable people. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:23:03, 24 May 2022 review of submission by 92.76.110.246

Würzbach is editor-in-chief for biggest newspaper in Germany ! 92.76.110.246 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be able to find at least three reliable sources that discuss him in depth. Theroadislong (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what or who she is,(*) it only matters what others have said about her in independent and reliable secondary sources. The draft only cites two sources, one of which is Springer's own website, and therefore not independent. The other, SZ, is basically appointment news, which comes under routine business reporting.
(*) Yes, some positions are inherently notable, eg. elected legislators, top-level athletes, professors in named chairs, etc., but this does not include newspaper editors.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:17, 24 May 2022 review of submission by ManiLLa


is literally the next csgo major after antwerp 2022, why mine is not accepted

Because your draft Draft:IEM Rio 2022 has zero sources, that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

Request on 01:32:52, 25 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Dscdrake


hello I was wondering why my article was rejected. i was not finished with it sure but I was kinda hoping for some more people to help work on it with me. i think it had potential


Dscdrake (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dscdrake: it was rejected because it has no hope of being published in a global encyclopaedia. You also shouldn't be writing about yourself, as this isn't a social media platform. By the time you've got your third major record deal or received your first Grammy, someone else (and hopefully not' your publicist!) will have written an article about you; until then, leave it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:38, 25 May 2022 review of draft by 142.181.72.25


Does my draft need more sources? 142.181.72.25 (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

needa help me

that thing draft:execuflight flight 1526 is constantly getting declined. the accident deserves to be an article but i cant find enough references, just the ntsb report and some news on web archive KingAviationKid (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KingAviationKid: actually, the way Wikipedia works is that if you cannot find enough (in quality and quantity) references, then the subject very much does not "deserve to be an article". It is one of the most fundamental requirements for an article that the subject must have been significantly covered in multiple reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:37:14, 25 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Erlovett


Hi. I recently spent three hours reworking my article, "Jenny Bilfield," very carefully following the instructions of AfC editors who replied in great detail to my Teahouse query. The article was just declined again, on these grounds:

-notability ("This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they....")

-"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources..."

-the reviewer's comment: "Refs look like PR."

Regarding the reliability of sources, I used my "three best sources." Two are Washington Post articles, and one is a Washingtonian magazine article. These are objectively reliable sources. (Washingtonian is a five-time National Magazine Award winner for its reporting and writing.)

Regarding notability, Bilfield is the sole subject of all sources.

Regarding the comment, I made sure the article was neutral in tone and content.

Can you please consider this and help?

Erlovett (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erlovett The issue is not the publishers, but what they published. Interviews with her do not establish notability, as those are primary sources. I'm wondering if you have an association with Bilfield. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:20, 25 May 2022 review of draft by Leonardrigby


Hello, I updated this article to include all third party sources. Can you please let me know if that is sufficient? Thank you.

Leonardrigby (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:45, 25 May 2022 review of submission by ULUGBEK99


ULUGBEK99 (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ULUGBEK99 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a social media platform. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:23:04, 25 May 2022 review of draft by Straughn


The article on Tekin was rejected for not showing "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article includes several obituaries in peer-reviewed journals, Festschrifts, and I have just added a death notice from the Turkish Language Association. I believe it should have passed the first time around, but wanted a second opinion to see if there's anything else I can do to improve it. Many thanks!

Straughn (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:47:51, 25 May 2022 review of submission by Danubeball

So yesterday my draft got denied entry onto the WikiStage. Based off of the reasoning,it wasn’t that it wasn’t notable it was because of Formatting issues.So I’m requesting some help to fix up the article. Hopefully with enough help the article can join the main space as a stub or even start. Thanks! Danubeball (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danubeball The sources you provided are all announcements of routine business activities or promotional pieces, which does not establish notability. To pass this process, you must have a draft that summarizes at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. For a restaurant chain, something like unsolicited reviews of their food or operations might work. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that stinks.admittedly I didn’t even read NCORP until today.I already decided to put my draft into the works of my sandbox anyways.Looks like I messed up that one. Danubeball (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

03:25:38, 26 May 2022 review of submission by 219.74.237.99

Hello, I've attempted to submit a draft for the aforementioned page several times, but the drafts have been rejected due to concerns over notability. It is my understanding that I require a certain volume of independent, secondary sources mentioning the subject of the entry in detail. I've currently provided multiple sources for each claim/reference in the entry, all of which do seem to meet the independent/secondary source criteria. Could I receive some assistance with getting the entry suitably revised and successfully published? Concrete advice regarding specific steps that need to be taken would be fantastic. Thank you! 219.74.237.99 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start by assessing your sources. Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Barring the Her World article I pointed to, every other source is unusable as presented. Two of the sources need to have new links/cites provided. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:53, 26 May 2022 review of submission by Fasal075


Fasal075 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Wikipedians, am requisting you to help to create my first article on wikipedia, i have created a page for well known business women based from kerala and doing her business in Dubai since 1990, she is also the vice president of Flowers TV (Indian TV channel). i have tried to publish the content but rejected, i strongly believe that the subject i have selected isin evitable from wikipedia so help me to rectify the errors in the article and republish the same.

11:39:38, 26 May 2022 review of submission by Ugoji.john

Good day Wikipedia's, please can someone help me out? I have an Article in sandbox which i have tried to move to the main page but it is replying that "This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect: From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed) or is the result of a page move. One reason this page was kept as a redirect is to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. Any redirect with a page move logged on its history page should be tagged with this rcat template."

But I want it move, so that my sandbox will be empty.

Can someone help out??

Ugoji.john (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugoji.john, there are a few issues here. First, your article was not ready for main space as it was a combination of essay and promotional material. Second, it has now been nominated for speedy deletion as copyright violation since the bulk of the article is a copy and paste of [1]. It may be helpful to read this guide to writing your first article, as well as familiarizing yourself with copyright policy. In short, Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic and except for brief quotes, articles never directly copy what the source says.Slywriter (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy responds. I applicate your comments but none of the above comments is applicable to the work. Nevertheless, can you help empty my sandbox so that I can put this article as a new one and send it for preview? Ugoji.john (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the redirect, so that you can access the page. You needed to go directly to the page or click the redirected from link to get back to the sandbox. From there, just blanking the page gets rid of redirect. And I would not be so dismissive of copyright violations. Continual violation of copyright can and will lead to restrictions on your ability to edit wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugoji.john Much of your draft is a word-for-word copy from https://datalab.com.ng/artificial-intelligence-in-nigeria/. I don't know why you say "none of the above comments is applicable...".
The source: Leo is an AI-powered digital assistant introduced by the United Bank for Africa in Nigeria. It is a mobile banking chatting platform that is used for financial transactions such as paying bills, checking balances instant responses, football updates.... Hmmmm, there's a comma missing in that phrase after "balances".
Your draft: Leo: This is an AI-powered digital assistant introduced by the United Bank for Africa in Nigeria. It is a mobile banking chatting platform that is used for financial transactions such as paying bills, checking balances instant responses, football updates... complete with the same missing comma.
That is a copyright violation. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:58, 26 May 2022 review of submission by 65.51.171.246

because i think people need to know who ill be one day 65.51.171.246 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do that on social media- Wikipedia is not social media, but an encyclopedia of topics deemed notable, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:12, 26 May 2022 review of draft by Slichsluch


I would like to hear opinions if there is any way to get the draft approved. It was first declined with a "Comment: Paid for puff piece, stuffed with trumpery "largest installer", "world’s first"..." which I generally can understand (though all those adjectives were present in the sources). So I removed all the "firsts" and "largests", leaving only facts and numbers along with the sources. Yet, it's declined again with a statement "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." which I don't understand.. Any ideas how to make it read like encyclopedia entry? Best, --Slichsluch (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Slichsluch (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slichsluch As you have declared as a paid editor, I assume that you represent or work for(directly or indirectly) the company you are writing about. You have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is and does. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does; it is an encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(and not based on materials from the company) to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. We don't want to know what the company does, but why the company is significant. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:19:06, 26 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Academictapatio


Hi, I need assistance with copyright violations. I'm unsure if it's just the sources or how I cited them. I'm also unclear about what needs an inline citation in the "Background" section. Conversely, what could I cut or keep if wanted to make the article into a stub? Thank you!

Academictapatio (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Academictapatio: I'm assuming you mean this Draft:Divya Victor?
The first thing I'll say is, please don't edit, remove, or otherwise mess with the AfC tags and comments; they are there for a reason. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law can be tricky, granted, but the basic premise behind it is very simple: you cannot use what isn't yours. You aren't allowed to copy & paste (or too closely paraphrase) text that someone else has written; you need to write in your own words. And you cannot upload an image that you didn't create yourself. The only exception to these rules is where the original creator (or otherwise the copyright owner) has expressly given their permission for their content to be used, in which case we need to see evidence of that. You can read more at WP:CV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll combine my answer to your last two questions (what needs citations, and what to cut or keep) into this: every material statement, and anything potentially contentious, needs to be supported with a citation to a reliable source. If you cannot do so, then remove that content. Why? Because without a source to back it up, it's just your say-so. And given that your draft currently has one source, cited once only, virtually the entirety of it is unsupported, and potentially needs to be removed. Which would, indeed, leave a very short stub, if anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Academictapatio: I've stripped back the draft article, added refs and removed close paraphrasing. Divya Victor is now in mainspace. Other editors can decide if some of the history should be deleted for copyright reasons.Bogger (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Request on 02:37:55, 27 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Varungoyal1997


(Redacted) Varungoyal1997 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts, should this phone number and DOB be redacted? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting oversight. (The DoB isn't oversightable as they're over the age of majority; the phone number *is*.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:26:09, 27 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rave lakshya


My Articles of Creation Draft: Dr. Ujjwal Patni was rejected on the grounds that references are not strong enough and I need help with making the article better


The article was rejected and the editor says the references are not good enough. I have added the most prominent news links and editorials to support the article and I need help with making the article a success.

Rave lakshya (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rave lakshya: the problem here is that your sources cannot make up for in quantity what they lack in quality. We need to see significant coverage of this person, in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. What we don't need to see is press release regurgitations like this, which quite frankly are embarrassing. Give us a few solid sources, and summarise in a neutral and factual manner what they have said about him. That is all that's required. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:15:39, 27 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jairocugliari


I have difficulties in proving the notability of this subject by Wikipedia rules. The ENBIS non-profit organization is recognized in Europe as on important centre on industrial mathematics (https://euro-math-soc.eu/industrial-mathematical-activities-europe). Also, the topic is mentioned in different Wikipedia pages as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Greenfield and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Box_Medal so I've understood that the article was for creation (disclaimer: I am a member of the organization). I didn't include all the references I have, there are several others. Is the notability a matter of number of references? Quality of the references?

Jairocugliari (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jairocugliari You seem to have a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia in that it is not a place to just tell about an organization and what it does. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia a Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You don't have any sources that do that- and the last reviewer must think it's not likely to find them, which is why they rejected your draft and it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jairocugliari: both the quality and quantity of the sources matter. Quality is important, as no amount of poor sources can establish notability. But quantity also plays a role, in that we need multiple good sources; exactly what 'multiple' means, isn't really defined, but it is more than just one or two. See WP:GNG for more info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing to add Masaya hokazono and other mangas.PLus updating japanese manga and novel stuff here

Say I wanted to add Masaya hokazono and his mangas Kichikujima aka Freak island,Pumpkin night,etc from the japanese wikipedia page but don't know how to so i wanted it to be added. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AC%BC%E7%95%9C%E5%B3%B6 Here is masaya's page on japan wikipedia https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%96%E8%96%97%E6%98%8C%E4%B9%9F.

Plus also adding Ingoshima and it's prequel Camgoroshi

Also adding in Ryu Horie and his works. Here is a link to one of his works https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8B%87%E8%80%85%E3%81%A8%E9%AD%94%E7%8E%8B%E3%81%AE%E3%83%A9%E3%83%96%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1

Also update the dead tube wiki page here with the japanese information https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Tube

Also Higanjima page with the japanese wiki page https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%BC%E5%B2%B8%E5%B3%B6?wprov=srpw1_0

Also Ira Ishida and his call boy books https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%B3%E7%94%B0%E8%A1%A3%E8%89%AF?wprov=srpw1_0

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A8%BC%E5%B9%B4 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%9D%E5%B9%B4

There is also the third and final book --2601:403:4201:A1E0:C013:5B7C:50DF:D3AF (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they have pages on the Japanese-language Wikipedia does not mean we can have pages about them here on the English-language one. Each edition of Wikipedia is its own project with its own standards and policies. I would read up on en.wp policy before attempting to translate any of these, particularly WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability for the lot and WP:Biographies of living persons for the mangaka. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:32, 27 May 2022 review of submission by Billbike2

Dear Fakescientist8000: Greetings! I am William S. Bike, and I am asking you to reconsider your rejection of my draft of a Linda Howe page for Wikipedia, and that you will allow it to be posted.

You called Ms. Howe not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like to respectfully disagree with this point. Ms. Howe is the author of four books—two with Sounds True Publishing and one with Hay House, which are major publishers in the self-help genre. Her fifth book will be published next month by yet another publisher, Modern Wisdom Press. Her books are therefore desirable among competitive publishers. Her book How to Read the Akashic Records is ranked #65 in the Parapsychology category on Amazon.com. Ms. Howe has sold thousands of books over the years. She therefore is a significant author.

Ms. Howe is the first person to make the Akashic Records (a subject long ago accepted for a listing on Wikipedia) accessible to the masses in several countries. She therefore is a significant pathbreaker. Since Wikipedia has that entry on the Akashic Records, if the Akashic Records are a significant enough subject for Wikipedia to allow an entry on it, it seems logical that a top author of books on the subject should be included on Wikipedia as well.

She also is one of the leading teachers of the Akashic Records in the world, having taught thousands of students in several countries. This makes her internationally significant.

Ms. Howe has won four awards from the Coalition of Visionary Resources, making her acknowledged as a significant figure from an important outside organization.

Let me give you some information about my own credentials. I’ve been successfully posting on Wikipedia for about 15 years. I am a career journalist and media expert. I’ve been published in over 65 venues, including the Chicago Sun-Times and university publications at Loyola University Chicago, DePaul University, the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois Chicago, the University of Illinois Springfield, and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I’ve been published in several peer-reviewed/refereed journals: the Delta Epsilon Sigma Journal, Nine: A Journal of Baseball History and Social Policy Perspectives, and the Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies. I have appeared on CNN, and been quoted in Forbes, USA Today, Epoch Times, and other major media. I am the author of four books. I’ve earned more than 60 journalism awards, including the Peter Lisagor Award—the top honor in Chicago journalism. As a career journalist, media commentator, and contributor to referred journals, I understand the importance of accurate and viable sourcing and information, and I believe sources and information about Ms. Howe are sound.

Wikipedia already has an entry on Linda Moulton Howe, a journalist and film maker who covers aliens, cow mutilation, and crop circle conspiricies. I believe differentiating two authors who happen to have similar names is important to both of them.

So I hope you will reconsider rejection of this article about Ms. Howe and allow it to be published. I would welcome any advice about suggested changes that will help the article be accepted for Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope you have a great week!


Billbike2 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billbike2 To address Fakescientist8000 directly, you should use their user talk page(User talk:Fakescientist8000). Most of your draft appears to be sourced to self-published(by Howe) sources. If you have contributed articles for 15 years, you should be aware that a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say, not what people say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Billbike2 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:20, 27 May 2022 review of draft by Nidhi Janu


I donot understand why this article is being declined. This is an educational work based on study from various websites. There is no plagiarism or advertising involved. It is a completely neutral work intended for MBA graduates to understand the basis and methods of lead generation marketing.

Nidhi Janu (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhu Janu What you wrote is an essay of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and is written in an encyclopedic style. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nidhi Janu Also, WP is not a "how-to" guide. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

00:38:28, 28 May 2022 review of submission by NonzeroCornet34

So I was told my article looked like an advertisement. I'm not sure how, and therefore do not know how to edit said article to make it seem less like that. So how can I change it to make it good? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a how-to guide. An article shouldn't be talking to/at the reader, nor should it be providing instructions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to explain the ins and outs of the language, but I see where you're coming from. How do I fix it? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You fix it by focusing on summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the topic, instead of telling the specifics of the language itself. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:36:57, 28 May 2022 review of submission by Nautilus126

I am requesting a re-review for two reasons. First, the reason that was given for my article's rejection was that the subject is "insufficiently notable" for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this were the case, why would there be so many articles posted about her online, both from her native Malaysia and around the world? Other than the articles I cited in the references section, there are many more that I did not include as they were not relevant. Second, I am being paid by the subject to make this page, and I would like to get this over with after so many months.

I left a similar comment a few weeks ago and received a reply saying that a draft that has been rejected will no longer be considered further. In the event that viewers question why I am requesting a re-review/asking for help, I leave this explanation: under the "Submission rejected" comment, there is an "ask for advice" button, which brought me here. It says nothing about a draft not being further considered once it is rejected- in fact, I was directed to this page upon seeing the rejection comment. If a draft being rejected means it will no longer be considered, why would there be an "ask for advice" button that allows users to request a review?

I would greatly appreciate a reconsideration of the rejection of my draft as well as any recommendations on what I can add/remove to the article so that It can be published once and for all. Thank you! Nautilus126 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1090247234"