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 KARAM777 (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 6 June 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


May 31

05:10:41, 31 May 2022 review of submission by 112.204.174.213


112.204.174.213 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:29, 31 May 2022 review of submission by AshVR

Hi, I received a notification saying that my article was declined, however on the actual draft it says that its still for review?? Can I get some clarity? AshVR (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AshVR: that's because you appear to have changed the templates. But not to worry, I've declined it for you again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! So it was declined for "non reliable sources"? - new to Wikipedia so I'm learning everything lol. AshVR (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the only sources cited are two Twitter accounts, and that's about as non-reliable as they come. Which is to say nothing of the fact that both accounts appear to be closely associated with the draft subject. (And in hindsight, for these reasons I probably should have rejected, rather than merely declined, the draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I appreciate for your help! I'll try my best to find some reliable sources and replace them there. Thank you once again. :) AshVR (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also address the apparent conflict of interest. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions on how to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:13, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Adridzius


Hello i don't really understand what this question means; As per the previous comment, given the nature of the subject in-line citations are strongly desired to support each claim made. Please see this guide. S0091. Thank you. Adridzius (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adridzius: it means that you're writing about a controversial topic and making highly contentious statements, and it is therefore imperative that you support each material statement with an immediate inline citation to a reliable source which clearly backs up what you've said. Yet, as it stands, your draft doesn't have a single inline citation, or even any proper referencing as such. Please review the guide the earlier comment signposts you to, and ensure that the draft complies before resubmitting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, i don't know what to do. The sources i find are only the ones i linked in the references nowhere else. Adridzius (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adridzius there are two separate but related issues here:
  1. You need to cite the sources that provide the contents of the draft. For example, where does the information in the unreferenced section 'Skydas today' come from? If you read it somewhere, cite that source. If it's just your own conjecture, take it out (see WP:OR). The same goes for everything, if you cannot support a statement with a reliable source, then it has no place in the draft.
  2. You also need to provide sources which are sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. The ones you've listed (though not cited) in the 'References' section may, or may not, be enough for this; I'm passing no judgement on them either way.
You must address both points 1 and 2; otherwise this draft cannot be accepted. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:56, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Maansouz


Maansouz (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question you wish to ask @Maansouz? (You have resubmitted your draft and it is awaiting review.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:47, 31 May 2022 review of submission by True Balkan Historian


True Balkan Historian (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC) bc the thing i wrote is way too good to get rejected (fr)[reply]

@True Balkan Historian: I came close to reporting you, actually, but held back as you appear to be a new editor. I would advise you not to repeat this, though, because that particular excuse has now expired. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:24, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:07, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ShayanXtreme You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:23, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:27, 31 May 2022 review of submission by Paulgorry


Hi there, I was just wondering why the submission for The Black Skies page had been rejected? Many thanks...

Paulgorry (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulgorry: it hasn't been rejected, it has been declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit, once you've addressed the reasons for declining. That reason being lack of notability. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft only cites one source, a YouTube clip. It also lists, without citing, an interview and a blog. None of these meets the GNG standard. And if all this band has released so far is one single, then they wouldn't be notable under WP:BAND either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulgorry: I made some improvements, but there's not enough sourcing. This other source I found [[1]] is a bit too promotional and fan-focused to help demonstrate notability, but could be used to source some background. It's still not enough. Please see WP:TOOSOON. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:42:20, 31 May 2022 review of submission by Qarva2016


Qarva2016 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


(Redacted)

Removed obvious spam. Unsurprisingly the editor is blocked and their draft deleted (as G11, natch). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:25, 31 May 2022 review of draft by QiuLiming1


@The Most Comfortable Chair: Hello, I am very not sure why this article is declined because of notability, on zhwiki, it have 20 different supporting sources, it is also widespread in chinese social media. PEP textbook is used for more than 70% of student in China for 10 years, and inappropriate illustration many effect thousands or millions of student. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, there is no article this draft can be merged into. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello QiuLiming1. Although the incident is being covered by the mainstream media right now, it is too early to tell whether this will have any lasting significance or impact. Education in China could be a place to potentially merge content from the draft, particularly to the "Issues" section. Alternatively, I noticed that Wikipedia has an entry on Higher Education Press but not on People's Education Press — this could also be an opportunity to start an article about PEP (an obviously notable government entity) with contents of the draft included in a potential "Controversies" section. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QiuLiming1: I'm going to echo the comments above that this is not appropriate for an article. Nobody is going to come to Wikipedia and look this particular title up. However, I'm going to take a different approach with my recommendation to you. While there may be a suitable place for this info in Education in China, it is recommended that you let someone else add it. Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, while English fluency is not required, since "minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others," from the current state of the article, I do not believe that your English skills will allow you to successfully write the content. Per guidelines, "if poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page." TechnoTalk (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I actually looked up the exact title as it is written on Chinese Wikipedia, but I do understand maybe their is no enough significance for it to be included in an article now. For that reason, I do not think that should be included in Education in China article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also, another article related to Chinese new, 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak got keep during an afd, could you breifly explain the difference of their notability? QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of the AfD discussion, participants seemed to agree that an article covering the outbreak specific to March 2022 would not be notable itself. However the consensus was that expanding the scope of the article to a timeframe of a year was warranted since the outbreak and its consequences persisted beyond March (PERSISTENCE) and merging this article (which was likely to expand in its coverage of events) would be inappropriate per SIZESPLIT. There were also various comments that pointed to the unique circumstances of the 2022 outbreak, which strengthened the case for it having a separate article per CONTENTSPLIT.
In contrast, the draft covers an event that is much narrower in its scope as well as timeframe. Essentially, it is not possible to determine if events covered in the draft would be reported on for much longer — while it would be reasonable to expect that the duration and peculiar details of 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak would ensure sustained coverage. As of now, it is unclear whether or not this textbook controversy would be independently notable per NEVENT, and it would be best to wait for now — DELAY: "Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote." — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it, thanks. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:43, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Vladdy Daddy Silly


Why are the sourced not verified? they are used for the page about the romania-brazil relations. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

after the feedback of an admin i decided to delete the article. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved comments to chronological order and to display author. @Vladdy Daddy Silly: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

01:57:42, 1 June 2022 review of submission by MattMili


MattMili (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MattMili: Neither of your sources are acceptable - we can't cite streaming websites or YouTube (connexion to subject). Are there no in-depth, non-routine, independent sources that are written by identifiable journalists/music critics and published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:58, 1 June 2022 review of submission by 174.87.117.120


174.87.117.120 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:06, 1 June 2022 review of submission by Somesh.j9

Hi, I've recently attempted to submit a draft for the mentioned page as my first submission, but the draft has been rejected due to concerns over notability. As I understand that I would require more significant independent/secondary sources addressing the subject of entry in detail.

I've currently provided references to meet the independent/secondary source criteria for reviewing the facts shared in the draft. It will be more helpful if I could receive some assistance with getting the entry suitably revised and successfully published? Concrete advice regarding specific steps that need to be taken would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Somesh.j9 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Somesh.j9[reply]

@Somesh.j9: media outlets are subject to the same notability requirements as anything else, meaning they must meet the WP:GNG standard of showing significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Currently your draft lists no such source, citing only the paper's own website, and two sources providing access to past issues online; these only prove that the publication exists (if that), but do not contribute towards notability in the slightest. (There is also the possibility of notability per subject-specific criteria, as outlined in WP:NMEDIA, but nothing in the draft suggests these would be met.)
On a different point, it isn't clear where the information in the draft is coming from, as you haven't cited your sources inline, and have instead simply piled all the cites at the end. This makes it difficult to verify any of the statements. Please see WP:REFB for advice.
Finally, you should write in a neutral tone, without trying to promote the subject: expressions like 'coveted', 'quite remarkably', etc. are puffery and have no place in an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:46:43, 1 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordofhunter


My topic is notable as per WP:NBASE. Still, the top authority sources are removed and the draft is rejected.

Lordofhunter (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordofhunter: The draft has been declined, not rejected; a declined draft can be edited and resubmitted. The three sources you had included were Wikipedia mirrors and other wikis. Such websites can't be used as sources in Wikipedia. Have another look at the information in the decline notice and on your user talk page. Follow the links in the notices – they have a lot of info about the requirements for sources to be considered reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Updated sources, please check. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:02, 1 June 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew


Company is well established and also getting good presence in Google Trend and Local and National News..so Expecting someone to help me to publish this company

SandAndrew (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandAndrew: the draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. Also just to clarify, "well established and also getting good presence in Google Trend" are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:42, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Mango150


Mango150 (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering how the sources in this don't show notability, and I'm not sure how I didn't write neutrally and being accused of making an attack page? I thought this was just informing people about a political candidate. Many thanks.

@Mango150: for the record, I didn't 'accuse' you of anything; no need for the drama. I said care should be taken so this doesn't result in an attack page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. However, how do the sources not establish notability? There are plenty of articles of him on google, and the articles mentioned mostly contain him, and one contains the election results which included him. Mango150 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Real News Hub a reliable source. Not that I know it, but their style of reporting, and the way they describe themselves in the About section, doesn't suggest that.
Candidate profiles, campaign news, manifestos, etc. are routinely reported around election time, and are essentially based on the single event of the candidate running for election. Had they not stood, they would not have warranted such coverage.
The 6 May 2022 ABC News story comes, IMO, closest to providing significant coverage, but it alone isn't enough.
That's my take of it. If another reviewer sees this differently, they're of course more than welcome to overrule me and accept this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Is there any way to find the actual nomination forms of the candidates in the electoral commission? Would that establish enough notability? Mango150 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There also also several other sources that report on the same ABC News story you referred to, such as:
quite a lot more too Mango150 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Hi again, sorry for so many replies. I have just updated the page again. I have removed the Real News Hub, and added The Brisbane Times. Wondering if it is now worthy as an article or not? Mango150 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:21, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Billy Rosendale


Hi there!

I updated this article Regius_Professor_of_Engineering (Edinburgh) to add the Incumbent regius professor, Themis Prodromakis.

I thought it entirely appropriate to create a biography article for Themis (as exists for the preceding professors in the list) and suggested this to colleagues working in the field of research.

And so we have created a draft article: Draft:Themis_Prodromakis.

First submission was declined for lack of citation. Which I tried to rectify.

There was also a comment regards copyright violation but I have been assured the content was written for this Wikipedia article and then copied to Themis's Imperial profile page - not the other way around! I have not worked out how to reply to comments made by reviewers - or indeed how I could give verification that copyright has not been violated in this instance.

The second submission has been rejected based on the poor quality of references.

I am really struggling to find verifiable sources for citation. For example, Themis is Visiting Professor at the Department of Microelectronics and Nanoelectronics at Tsinghua University but I could only find his own tweet on Twitter to verify this.

Is it simpler to delete claims for which verifiable sources cannot be found? Can anyone offer advice or help improve this draft article? Comments suggest the article will be deleted if it fails another submission.


Cheers Billy

Billy Rosendale (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Billy Rosendale (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Billy Rosendale: this person should be inherently notable per WP:NACADEMIC, on account of the named chair, and possibly one or more of their Fellowships as well, so looks to me like they warrant an article. Of course, those claims would need to be supported by reliable sources, but these can be primary (eg. university staff profiles etc.).
All material or potentially contentious statements, as well as any private personal details such as DOB, will need to be supported by reliable sources via inline citations, and any content that cannot be thus supported must be removed. This is especially important in articles on living people, see WP:BLP.
Finally on a different point, you need to formally declare your conflict of interest, as you appear to be professionally connected. I will post a message on your user talk page on how to do that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:21, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Wikiputta


Wikiputta (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:01, 1 June 2022 review of submission by 2400:AC40:609:2235:5CA6:5A18:E9BE:DCE4


2400:AC40:609:2235:5CA6:5A18:E9BE:DCE4 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article:Hefzur Rahman Khan I'm a Rohingya boy I living in Bangladesh Cox's Bazar Teknaf I was born in Myanmar Ali than kyan Medina para, 2006-05_06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.177.247.123 (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and? Your draft Draft:Hefzur Rahman Khan was rejected, Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about yourself, it is an encyclopaedia not social media. Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:26, 1 June 2022 review of submission by Wikiputta

Please help me to create a page of this movie

Wikiputta (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiputta Unreleased films generally do not merit articles, see the notability criteria. This is why the draft was rejected. It may be reconsidered when the film is released. If there is some notable aspect of the production of the film itself, beyond cast/crew announcements or other routine coverage,(see Rust (suspended film) for one example) please discuss that with the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:22, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Guycitizen


Hi there! I've added citations with credible sources but it's still not approved? Can you please assist me? Just trying to make a page for a notable VC and foreign policy expert.

Guycitizen (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guycitizen: Entire swathes of your text are still unreferenced; this is not acceptable. Every claim that could potentially be challenged requires a cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:57:33, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Dicone123


I need to change the title to Formic rather than Formic Technologies. The company changed their trademark.

Dicone123 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may leave a note on the draft talk page for the reviewer, who will place it at the proper title if they accept it. Note that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names as article titles, but what independent reliable sources refer to the topic as. See WP:COMMONNAME.
If you work for this company, that must be declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Request on 01:41:46, 2 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gfdiamond


Hello, I cannot understand why the SKI TV page has been deleted. SKI TV is a major TV station in the world.


Gfdiamond (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gfdiamond: We don't accept ad copy or bad attempts at SEO. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:29:03, 2 June 2022 review of submission by Nothing-nothing12345678


Nothing-nothing12345678 (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cherri Gregg

Local broadcaster and a legal nerd . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovase69 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent news or scholarly source that discusses him at length, is written by an identifiable author, and published in/by an outlet with competent editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, correction, and retractions that supports that claim. If no such sources can be found for a given claim, that claim must be removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. You have swathes of uncited content, and seem to have an unhealthy emphasis on direct quotes from him; on top of this most of your sources are completely unacceptable. We don't cite Amazon (online storefront), and nothing he says, commissions, or writes helps a whit for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:33:05, 2 June 2022 review of submission by Matrixpressworx


Hello,

I'm officially requesting assistance with this article for the following reasons.

1. This article was rejected by user Kaleeb18 on the grounds of "Not Showing Significant Coverage". I believe this to be in error due to the fact that a total of NINE independent sources were 'cited' which seems to be ignored by the reviewer. The cited sources include newspapers, horror websites, Film Review sources etc. As per Wikipedia rules these sources were provided to show the validity of the topic. The reviewer Kaleeb18 seems to have ignored this provided proof which is in our opinion caused the submission to be be treated unfairly. If there is a better way to reference this information on the article this is not clear to me even after reading the recommended review materials. If it does need to be referenced in a different way some CLEAR guidance on how to do that would be appreciated.

2. All efforts have been made to make this article accurate and unbiased according to all rules of wikipedia which I spent a significant amount of time reading. I am independent of the film maker but I do have full permission from Brimstone Pictures / Internet Matrix Inc. to proceed with article creation. Proof of this can be provided. On this note I just received a notice of copyright violation and removal of the poster which is ALSO in error by a reviewer. As per the guidelines on response to this I'm getting the company that made the film fill out and email the required template to show I have this permission.

I understand that my lack of knowledge in the 'processes' of wikipedia are foreign to me which is why I'm sending this help request. All I want to do is the following:

1. Post an article about this award winning short film that has worldwide distribution. 2. Have the article approved as the required references have been provided. 3. Have the poster reinstated as I do have usage permission which will be provided by the company as soon as possible. 4. (And if possible) have someone assist me in formatting the additional information that goes below posters in other movie listings I've seen. Credits, Budget etc. I honestly have no idea how to do this in the article creation tool.

Thank you for your time and assistance with this matter, John David

Matrixpressworx (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matrixpresswork Please see your user talk page for important information. Fair use images cannot be in drafts. You may add the image when and if the draft is accepted. Images are not relevant to the draft review process, which only considers the text and sources.
Large portions of the draft are unsourced. The other sources were not ignored, but are not appropriate for establishing notability. Interviews, announcements, and brief coverage are not appropriate. Some of them deal with the band that made the music for the film, not the film itself(which might merit the band an article). 331dot (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:07:17, 2 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordofcorona



Lordofcorona (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordofcorona: All of your prose is completely unsourced, and the vast majority of the filmography is unsourced, with one entry being over-cited. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent news or scholarly source that discusses him at length, is written by an identifiable author, and published in/by an outlet with competent editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, correction, and retractions that supports that claim. If no such sources can be found for a given claim, that claim must be removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:31, 2 June 2022 review of submission by Erdincmusic

I am trying to create a wiki page for my company MadRooster Game Audio Lab. I have entered necessary informations about the company such as the industry we are operating, where we are located and our products. I have also inserted two links referencing our website and our products. Unfortunately it's keep getting rejected for not having reliable sources. What other sources I can possibily add other than our website and online store? Erdincmusic (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erdincmusic: by and large, you should not be trying to create an article for your company, as that constitutes a significant conflict of interest, as well as likely paid editing.
As for why your draft is being declined, this is mainly for lack of evident notability. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your company website and Unity store clearly do not meet any aspect of this standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:00, 2 June 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ShayanXtreme, Draft:Abu Hurraira Dhanani has been submitted for review, which means that a volunteer will review it eventually. Apologies for the delay, but there are thousands of drafts in the queue and it takes a long time to review them all. I expect someone will review your draft within the next few weeks. Thanks for your patience, and let us know if you have any further questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:30, 2 June 2022 review of submission by Caitlinlee531


Hi! I'm not sure why my request was rejected - any insight would be greatly appreciated so I can work to get it published asap. Thank you! Appreciate it!

Caitlinlee531 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected and deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:15, 2 June 2022 review of draft by AmandaPantsTX

I had previously updated all references from press relaeses and changed them all to news sources with no relation ot Lancium. I am curious to receive more information as to which statements and references are in question so I can either find alternative references or delete the information until more references can be cited.

AmandaPantsTX (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:00, 2 June 2022 review of submission by WarpingSpacetime


The Wave Accelerated Ring Pinch Reactor article has been nominated for deletion and it appears that WP policies may be in conflict with one other (i.e. WP:SOURCE "reliable sources" vs WP:SPS "self-published sources" (conference presentation) by the respective Subject Matter Expert (SME) in addition to SME's reliable sources such as peer-reviewed papers that are directly relevant to topic/field and referenced in the WP article). Is it too soon to ask help from WP Administrator? At the very least, can you help in copying article back over to my user page if deleted?

Thank you in advance for your help and guidance!

WarpingSpacetime (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WarpingSpacetime: sorry, not quite sure what you're asking (for), and why at this help desk? The article was accepted, so that's more or less where the AfC process ends. It was then taken to AfD, which is likely to remain open for another few days at least. (And by the same token, you have plenty of time to copy the article contents, if you so wish.) What 'help from WP Administrator' do you feel is needed here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:47:23, 2 June 2022 review of submission by 98.148.167.84


I added some more references to the page from reliable sources. Please review the page. 98.148.167.84 (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


June 3

00:16:11, 3 June 2022 review of draft by 76.20.110.116

I added many reliable sources to this article. However, it got declined as inadequate and I didn't do anything wrong. There are details about the shopping center and I added the link to this website. I want to create an article about the shopping center that does not have a page about it unlike other shopping malls. I check the source and they look correct. Did I review my draft correctly or I copied the text? Thank you for it.

76.20.110.116 (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC) Finished[reply]

Just because a shopping mall exists, doesn't mean it warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia. Neither is 'other shopping malls have articles' a justification. In order to establish notability in Wikipedia terms, the mall must have received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no such sources. (The draft also requires plenty of copy editing, and the citations should come immediately after the statements they support, not all piled at the end, but these were not the reasons for declining.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added many links. but can you explain why 8000 sunset strip is not notable or famous? I know my draft got decilned. 76.20.110.116 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You offered sources that document its existence- that is insufficient. Any article about this mall must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about it. It actually should not detail things like the specific establishments that are there or how many parking spaces they have. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:02:46, 3 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Zxcvbnm123411


Hi there. My draft was rejected because it was considered an advertisement, but I believe the content was to state the facts from a neutral point of view, so please tell me which part or sentence in my draft is like advertisement and how I can improve it. Thanks！ Zxcvbnm123411 (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm123411 Please read the entire decline reason in the grey box; it isn't (IMO) so much that this draft is overly promotional, but that it isn't encyclopaedic, and more to the point that the sources cited originate with the organisation in question (own website, and regurgitations of press releases issued by them). This latter point has been pointed out also in the earlier declines. We need to see significant coverage by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. We also need to see some reason, beyond merely existing, why this organisation warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm123411 DoubleGrazing above, along with the decline notices themselves, mention the need for independent sources (independent from the company). See WP:Independent. The first two sources are to the company's own Web site, so they are not independent. It looks like all of the rest of the sources cover "routine business dealings" such as acquisitions, investments, etc. All companies go through routine business events like this, and none of that makes a company notable (click here). 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:12, 3 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I have submitted for AfC review which is pending. The subject is very much notable. I'm requsting an assessment of the Draft and assist me if I need to expand, cite more. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have submitted it for review and it is pending. It will be reviewed in due course, though this may not happen immediately. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I just asked for suggestions. Can you please check the Draft and assist me for further so that it can be accepted? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it will be reviewed in due course. I don't have any specific suggestions to offer; I'd say the chances of acceptance are not bad. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you. I shall try to improve more. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: One thing I would remark on as an AfC reviewer is that the tone is not quite neutral, for instance in the headings in section 3. Also keep in mind that if, for instance, a source published by Amnesty International makes an evaluative statement like "the villagers were terrorized by the army", Wikipedia can't make that same statement as if it were a fact. Such claims need to be attributed to the source (perhaps on the lines of "Amnesty International condemned the army's actions and said [...]"). I haven't checked that source (since I'm not reviewing the draft now), but I see that you are providing page numbers for the information, which is great, and makes the reviewer's task much easier. --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea with due thanks for your compliment, I shall acknowledge your assessment with good faith. I am in a feel, that I need assistance with this article. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea please look now about the Amnesty thing. I haven't copied you, but used my own language. :) - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea by the time we were discussing about the Draft, the Draft was accepted. I'm glad that it is accepted. Can you please use Rater? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:56, 3 June 2022 review of submission by Nehakushwaha.jp


I am new here. So, please guide me so I will continue contributing. The above page has added references that include The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV News, News 18 and even have a portal of the Indian government. Clearly mentioned the author's name, his professional career and whatever he is contributing to the society that he can.

Please guide me if I will make any mistakes on the above contribution.

Nehakushwaha.jp (talk) 09:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehakushwaha.jp: I haven't read them all, but I think some of the sources for the books are OK, but not great. I recommend to use the best 1 or 2 to source the books in the body, and then add a "reception" section where you can briefly summarize the reviews from the other decent sources. You should also add some biographical info. If all he is known for is the books, then perhaps the books should have articles, but not him. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:39, 3 June 2022 review of submission by Jazzy is da best2022

Hey Wikipedia!, I was just wondering why my article didn't get processed, I made sure there were no inappropriate features throughout the essay, had no copyrighted themes, ect. Although it still didn't get processed. If you had a problem with no referencing page, that is because I interviewed the subject personally.

Kind Regards Jazzy Is Da Best2022 Jazzy is da best2022 (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft should have been rejected, it is clearly not a serious attempt at an article and it has been tagged for speedy deletion as an obvious hoax/vandalism. Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Soufia Taloni

Thank you for reviewing the Draft:Soufia Taloni. Though I worked hard for it, I was trepidatious about acceptance through AFC. As I had never created such a long article for AFC, I was worried too. Thanking you again. Regards - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.78.216.195 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked for block evasion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:55:33, 3 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MorpheusDescending

An article draft I submitted was incorrectly rejected. 

An article draft about a fictional character I submitted for approval was rejected by a reviewer whose reason for the rejection was that zero non-primary sources were cited in the article. However this reviewer is incorrect. The article draft actually cites *only* secondary sources published completely independently of the article's subject; there are no primary sources cited at all. How can I most easily have the article re-reviewed? I am pretty confident it meets standards for acceptance. Thank you!MorpheusDescending (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MorpheusDescending: The article is sourced with two Wonder Woman encyclopedias. I'm not sure if that is good enough or insufficient in comic book articles, an area outside my focus. I think you'd be better off posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/DC Comics work group for advice. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the counsel @TechnoTalk, I appreciate it! MorpheusDescending (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adil Taouil

Request to move Draft:Adil Taouil to article name page Adil Taouil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.130.191.88 (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If and when the draft is accepted, it will automatically be moved to the article space; you do not need to request that here. What you should do instead is address the reasons why it was declined, and then resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did some minor cleanup, and hunted for more sources, but there's not much there to work with. There is a French article that looks quite similar, with a couple of additional foreign language sources [2]. This is going to be an uphill battle for the creator. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

04:03:39, 4 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


Can anyone please assess the draft and guide me further to work for the AFC acceptance! - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For quicker turnaround time, be WP:BOLD and publish. The whole community can assist at that point. AfC is setup to prevent junk from getting published & guide well-intentioned new editors, it's not equipped to help make decent articles better.Slywriter (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter I can't be WP:BOLD to move it as I am in condition laid by Administrator to create article for submission only. Hence, I'm asking for higher-level users' help for it. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. Makes more sense now. In a more general sense, do have some concern with this board being used to notify reviewers of drafts being "ready" since it's not really a place to expedite review.Slywriter (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slywriter I need assistance and guidance. I'm not asking anyone to accept the Draft. If the Draft is suitable, then it will be. I see the article person is notable for his heinous crimes. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: I noticed the article has been resubmitted. I made some improvements that will hopefully help get it approved. It was a bit repetitive and overdramatic. You want the tone to be encyclopedic, despite how evil you think this person is. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NeverTry4Me, I didn't check the sources but this needs a huge cleanup. I did some copyediting but I don't think this is enough. WP:NPOV should always be maintained when writing articles that include controversies or anything such. ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:22, 4 June 2022 review of submission by Abdallah H. Riziki


Abdallah H. Riziki (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdallah H. Riziki: what is your question? Your Draft:Abdallah H. Riziki autobio has been declined, because it is completely unreferenced. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:22, 4 June 2022 review of submission by 88.113.214.36


Do you have some proposals or suggestions what kind of content should be added in the article? There are lots of similar biographies of doctors (and people of other professions) available in Wikipedia like this, I don't see why this would not suffice?

88.113.214.36 (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. We do not review articles against the yardstick of whatever else may exist on Wikipedia, but rather against the relevant guidelines. In this case, the sources are nowhere near enough to establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. So it isn't a question of adding more content, as such; it's a question of adding more and (significantly) better sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:57, 4 June 2022 review of draft by KatrinKultur


KatrinKultur (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KatrinKultur You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

03:41:49, 5 June 2022 review of draft by SimonUpNorth


Hi, it is my first time adding a new article. Am just checking I have done it correctly so far to allow it to be accepted, or if something will cause it to be rejected that means I'll have to go to the back of the queue. I have not been able to add an image yet (the league's logo), as it rejects it due to the article not being added yet, so presume that will need to wait till it is live? There is still info to add to the article with regard to the Divisional Honours from 1930s to present, and also the cup winners.

SimonUpNorth (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonUpNorth: you may struggle to establish notability of this subject. Most of the sources cited are primary, club websites and the like; the book appears to be self-published. You need to show that independent and reliable secondary sources have discussed this league in sufficient extent. You also need to support every material statement with a citation to a reliable source. As it stands, I personally would not be accepting this draft.
And just to explain a technical point: if your draft gets declined, it doesn't go to 'the back of the queue', because there is no queue; if anything, there is a pool, from which drafts are drawn more or less randomly for review. Whereas if your draft gets rejected, it doesn't go anywhere — that's the end of the road for it, as far as the AfC process is concerned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and advice. I should be able to find newspaper articles etc that discuss the league and also secondary sources such as FCHD that displays some of the later details, and I'll reference everything as discussed SimonUpNorth (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:08, 5 June 2022 review of draft by Thiagotsn


Thiagotsn (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fakescientist8000

I don’t get it, just two out of eleven references are from primary sources and this article was rejected anyway.

Hi @Thiagotsn: looks to me like there are more than two primary sources cited. (Only two cites are to the organisation's own website, but that's not the sole definition of primary.) Note also that merely having secondary sources isn't enough, they need to cover the subject in sufficient depth (as well as being independent and reliable, of course). If you still feel the referencing satisfies WP:GNG, please point out the three strongest sources that meet the criteria in that guideline. Thank you, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just so we're clear, your draft wasn't rejected, only declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit it once you've addressed the reasons for declining.
PPS: I've posted a COI query on your talk page, please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:43, 5 June 2022 review of draft by 108.58.9.194

Typically tornadoes are mentioned in derecho articles when spawned by derecho, so one system. See August 2020 Midwest derecho.

108.58.9.194 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:10, 5 June 2022 review of submission by Sidbill60


I can understand why the discographical material from the subject's web site are not acceptable; I'll fix that. But I'm really surprised the main sources I included with this article are not deemed sufficient to establish Amado as a major figure in jazz, as a musician and label creator. These sources are leading publications specializing in improvised music. For a point of reference, I direct you to the Wikpedia pages on Ken Vandermark and Rob Mazurek, which rely on similar and in some cases the same sources I did. I'm happy to make changes, but Wikipedia needs to take a second look at this decision not to move forward.

Sidbill60 (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let gallery is a primary source, profiles on Discogs are not independent, interviews are not reliable, Apple music is not independent, blogs are not reliable. See also other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: User:Sidbill60/sandbox/Rodrigo Amado
@Sidbill60: Congratulations! You've just activated Bastard Helper From Hell mode! Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
As to the two grenades you lobbed, Ken Vandermark was created 2004/04/10 (and is presently tagged as being undersourced) and Rob Mazurek was created 2006/11/16. Both of these pages predate Articles for Creation's modern form and the strengthening of our standards enforcement. If you actually cared about Wikipedia, you'd bring those articles up to snuff as well, rather than use them as straw men to justify your draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ouch, but thanks! i needed that! Sidbill60 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a good source, in Downbeat. Unfortunately, one good source isn't enough to justify any article on Wikipedia, and especially not an article where more-or-less everything MUST have a cite. If you can find more sources of Downbeat's calibre or stronger - online or off, English-language or no - that would go a very long way towards proving notability, but you'd still have to essentially rewrite the article to summarise what sources you do end up citing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i do see that discog is an acceptable linked source on for amado on the german wikipedia Sidbill60 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:55, 5 June 2022 review of draft by 174.91.89.244


How many more sources does my draft need? I can't even find anymore sources regarding '"Adeilosmilus. 174.91.89.244 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb we're looking for three high-quality sources (in this case, whitepapers that discuss the genus at length, either as a direct research topic or as part of a related one). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:11, 5 June 2022 review of draft by Socialresearch


I don't understand why this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Helen_Pitt was rejected. The reason given was "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

However, all of the references were -about- Helen Pitt, not passing references. All the references in in reliable secondary sources that are independent of Helen Pitt. I also added a bunch of references, again, all -about- Helen Pitt, not passing references, and all are published, reliable secondary sources independent of Helen Pitt.

Would someone please explain further why this got rejected?

Socialresearch (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, rejected would mean that there was no chance of it being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:15, 5 June 2022 review of draft by CryptofanEn


Hello guys, my article has not been accepted, because it appears to sound too commercial, so I fix it and delete all the words and sentences that could be look that way. I have a lot a references from different objectives sources. Please help me to check it, to see if its all ok, for resubmitting. Thank you guys!

CryptofanEn (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is blatant advertising, do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, I just start my Wikipedia articles with that subjects i like like game and crypto CryptofanEn (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requestor alerted to the blockchain sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

02:18:36, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Makijohnson


I do not see a reason to decline my page request, it is a biography of a famous persons which is allowed on wikipedia Makijohnson (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Makijohnson: I do - your draft's improperly sourced, both in what is being cited and how. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent news or scholarly source that discusses him at length, is written by an identifiable author, and published in/by an outlet with competent editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, correction, and retractions that supports that claim. If no such sources can be found for a given claim, that claim must be removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:49, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Dravidhiman


Dravidhiman (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:09, 6 June 2022 review of submission by NeverTry4Me

I'm not able to figure out the reason mentioned: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view,..". Moreover, how a mob lynching incident (resulted in death) could have the view written in the draft? I need help and a fair review by some experienced reviewers. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: can you please help/assist me? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mu. (WP:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano That can't be the issue. And NPOV isn't the real issue as I have created several AFC and got approved. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase, then. I have absolutely zero desire to dive into an article about a controversial topic in a topic area that is KNOWN to attract more partisans than a mediaeval weapons museum. Why do you think that Arbitration case even exists in the first place? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned "Arbitration case even exists in the first place?" - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Draft is now approved by senior reviewer. Thank anyways. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 07:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a senior reviewer, we are all equal. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:23, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Blucheez (Online Clothing Brand)


Blucheez (Online Clothing Brand) (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept advertizing or the users pushing it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:38, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Johupa

Hi, it would be good to get some advice. I wanted to add an album to this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Rough_Trade_Records_albums. The page said to create a page and put this text at bottom Category:Rough Trade Records albums. Didn't intend to make it a big deal as this was my 1st effort at a page, but got rejected for lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". So added references to detailed description in Guardian Newspaper, Performance Magazine, French magazine, academic institutions - would have thought these fit the requirements. Still rejected...anybody able to give advice - maybe I need to improve the way I've cited them or remove some of the less impressive references? Or is there a simpler way to ensure the album is listed in the category Rough_Trade_Records_albums?? Thanks in advance ! Johupa (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johupa: categories are there to index existing articles, therefore you cannot add to a category any content that hasn't been published as an article; or, put another way, the only way to add content to a category is by first creating an article.
And to create an article on a subject, that subject must be deemed notable, usually by way of the general notability standard, which requires significant coverage — of the subject, not of indirectly related matters — in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Find and cite such sources, enabling the article to be created, and you can then add it to relevant categories. HTH -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply, you've helped clear up about categories. Re: general notability standard I did cite multiple reliable independent sources but I guess I need to find more specific examples and tidy the references up a bit. Thanks again. Johupa (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:22:22, 6 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Kawadkarchaitali



Kawadkarchaitali (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kawadkarchaitali: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been deleted, and the many warnings and notices posted on User talk:Kawadkarchaitali probably tell you why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:STUDENTS CHEMICAL SOCIETY OF NIGERIA (SCSN)

I made alot of mistake in writing the first article but now I have started familiar with the wikepedia please review it as I have finally edit it in good manner. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samum2 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:49:54, 6 June 2022 review of submission by Edechiconza


We are requesting assistance because we do not really know what we do to satisfy the requests of the reviewer Let's start from the two first sentences of the article you have suggested by the reviewer WP:Notability (academic journals)

"If an academic journal can be demonstrated to be impactful via reliable sources, we should probably have a dedicated article on it." Being indexed in DOAJ does not demonstrate the reliability and the impact of an academic journal, but being indexed in Scopus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopus) and Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Sources_Citation_Index) yes. I do not know how familiar are you with the reliability of the academic journals but, for example, to get indexed in Scopus it takes, often, more than two years. The journal is monitored for a long period, has to undergone a severe scrutiny by scientific committees and has to respect many strict criteria. This the reason why scholars all over the world are asked to publish their works in Scopus indexed journals. Moreover Scimago Journal Ranking (SJR) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCImago_Journal_Rank) indicator is a measure of the scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where the citations come from. According to SJR Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal is by large more influent of many of the journals listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals. Just to give you an idea, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal ranks as 36th in the world for the Architecture/Design domain (first quartile) and pretty well also for all other domains of interest (2nd quartile in Media Technology and Social Science - 3rd quartile for Human Computer Interaction, Computer Science applications and Education. Scopus, SJR and ESCI are the most reliable and noticeable third-party sources to legitimate the reliability and impact of an academic journal.

"Articles on academic journals are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as established by reliable sources." Interaction Design and Architecture(s) journal, however, is not only notable but it is also unusual enough and worthy to be noticed for many reasons, here at least a couple: - most of the open access Scopus indexed journals can be considered to have a "commercial" purpose since the publisher ask the authors to pay a fee to have the submitted papers published, while Interaction Design and Architecture(s) implements the diamond route with no expenses to access and publish papers. Papers are selected only on a scientific basis, after a rigorous double blind reviewing process and a check against malpractices; - Interaction Design and Architecture(s) is one of the few (maybe no more than five) academic journals in the world that implements video presentations of the published papers (the only one in their domains of interest); of course all video are open access and available on-line.

Let's come now to the criteria listed in the same article: Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area. Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources. Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.

Criterion 1 has been fully demonstrated (see above) Criterion 2 is also fulfilled if you consider that the journal h-index is 14 (of course it could be improved but can be considered quite good for the domains of reference and in comparison to most of the open access journal (in particular those listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open-access_journals). Criterium 3 should be considered in relation to the year in which the journal has been established (2005): in 17 years, thanks also to the achieved rankings can be considered quite important in the subject areas of interest (for some of them more, for some of them less; but it is well known in all domains of reference). Note that Journal age is not a consideration, and in general a recently established journal is not necessarily disqualified by its age.

Considering all that, we do really wonder if the content of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) is applied with equity to all wikipedia articles, in particular to those concerning open access journals and, as written before what we can in addition to improve the article and be compliant with Wikipedia rules Thanks in advance

@Edechiconza: TL;DNR — what is your question, please, succinctly? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also please can you explain who "we" is, Wikipedia user acccounts are strictly for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically why it has been rejected?
I have read the suggested page and I have not found any good reason to reject the proposed articles, also in comparison with similar ones. Sorry but the reasons cannot be provided succinctly. I prefer, always, to fully justify and argue my claims, also because in this way I can better understand your suggestions.
Sorry For the use of the plural.
Looking forward and thanks in advance. Edechiconza (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:34:52, 6 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by KARAM777



KARAM777 (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1091826725"