Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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


July 25

03:47:27, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Hubdarbrohii


Hubdarbrohii (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:05, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Hubdarbrohii


Hubdarbrohii (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hubdarbrohii It will not get accepted now because your draft don't includes any source and the draft is a biography of a living person. QiuLiming1 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:32:26, 25 July 2022 review of draft by Liptapp


Liptapp (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liptapp Please read this. "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use." Please declare your relationship to Puffy Mattress as soon as possible. QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QiuLiming1 how can I declare that I don't have any relationship with Puffy Mattress? Liptapp (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liptapp If you have no relationship, then you have just said so. How did you come to write about Puffy Mattress? You didn't pick it at random to edit about. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I was planning to pitch the wikipedia page if it gets publish. That's the plan. What will be the best course, I know I'm new in wikipedia if you can help me It will be greatly appreciate. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liptapp That doesn't answer my question as to how you came to edit about Puffy Mattress. I don't have much to add beyond what reviewers have already told you- that the draft is a clear advertisement, which tells of the existence of the company and its offerings. That's not what Wikipedia articles are for- a Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not a brief mention) have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. This does not include staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, or the like. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot to answer your question is I want to target mattress company, like Casper Sleep also I based the Puffy Mattress article on it. If you compare the content they are the same style and approach in terms of writing. Liptapp (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liptapp That still doesn't answer my question, (I realize you wanted to, but that doesn't explain why) but that's all right. In any event, see other stuff exists as to why it's usually not a good idea to use other articles as a model. If you want to do that, make sure to use articles that are classified as good articles. The Casper article has some similar sourcing issues as your draft, just on a larger scale. Casper was briefly a public company which might add to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I'm not related whatsoever to Puffy Mattress. I want to pitch the Wikipedia that I created to be compensated in the future. Can you help me with the next step this is my first wikipedia page. I really appreciate if you could help me on things that I need to fix. Thanks Liptapp (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:04:11, 25 July 2022 review of draft by Adithi 5599


Hi, I submitted my first article on wikipedia and my submission got rejected. the reason they gave me is that my article doesn't have reliable sources to back it up. but I added all the required information and also added reference links. I am looking for your help to help me publish my first article. thank you.

Here is the introduction of my article: VentureStudio is a startup incubator established by Ahmedabad University, a private, non-profit university in Gujarat, India, set up in 2009 by the Ahmedabad Education Society.

Here is the article link in my google drive: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C6am0uc_ht-PpR_e8yzhynrA-smBczEs05MC13rIF94/edit?usp=sharing

Adithi 5599 (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adithi 5599: We never cite Wikipedia, and every other link has nothing about the company worth citing. You need better sources. If you have a connexion to VentureStudio, you are obligated to DISCLOSE that connexion publicly on your userpage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:10, 25 July 2022 review of draft by Hubdarbrohii


Hubdarbrohii (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hubdarbrohii: you don't ask a question, but let me just say that your draft has now been rejected for the second time; please do not resubmit it again. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media platform or a free web hosting service where you can tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:37, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Irfanmehmoodkhan


Irfanmehmoodkhan (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irfanmehmoodkhan You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about their own works. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:03, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Madzengamabaso

I have updated the draft of Dr. Anele Hammond nee Mngadi, I've only used information that has readily available sources to backup the information provided. Madzengamabaso (talk) 11:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:19, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Oscarfelix.may


Oscarfelix.may (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


More basic details have been included about Steuart Padwick and hopefully it is in a more appropriate tone. He continues to create more and more prominent works since the last rejection he has created the UK' first 100% cement free concrete superstruture. This has reduced the carbon footprint of the concrete by over 70% - this is a major step in the path to reducing the carbon footprint in the built environment.

@Oscarfelix.may: There's still not enough about the artist, and the sources about his works are weak. There should be no blogs, press releases or primary sources, such as the link to made.com that you added. I made some improvements but the article draft has been rejected, which means without a major revision with better sources, it will not be considered further. Rejections come when an article is repeatedly resubmitted without the changes that are requested, to not waste future reviewers' time. See WP:NARTIST for artist notability guidelines. I think he's starting to get there with the coverage of his very visible public art, but the sourcing needs to be significantly improved before there will be any further consideration. TechnoTalk (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:02, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Roarkemoody


Roarkemoody (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC) I do not know how to correctly add references.[reply]

17:24:17, 25 July 2022 review of submission by Roarkemoody


Roarkemoody (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered again. QiuLiming1 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to create page for a friend. Unsure how to cite

See Help:Referencing for beginners - but note that your sources are pretty much unusable anyway (we don't cite streaming sites, website homepages, or prose interviews). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:30, 25 July 2022 review of draft by Transcender.beyond

Hi Folks, am new and just not sure whether my draft is ok or not: I was requested to provide additional sourcing, I included two sources, but can't understand if those have been rejected too and that's why the page is dead?

thanks

Transcender.beyond (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:58, 25 July 2022 review of draft by 2601:18E:C300:5770:9D03:E433:2A17:190A


2601:18E:C300:5770:9D03:E433:2A17:190A (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Help Desk: I have submitted a query to the dispute resolution group but to my knowledge have not received a reply. Thus, I am writing to you now with my concern about my Leadership-as-Practice entry. First, I would like to say that I have been successful publishing other articles in wikipedia - such as Work Self-Efficacy Inventory and Leaderful Fieldbook (in wikisummaries). Thus, I know how to prepare and write encyclopedic entries. However, in this case, the first reviewer thought the draft to be overly essay-ish in form, and then subsequent reviewers, in particular, Nightenbelle and Rusalkii, have merely carried on this critique without sufficient scrutiny. Thus, the criticism has taken on a life of its own, effectively nullifying any chance for an objective review. It is with this concern that I asked for a dispute resolution. However, as the help desk, perhaps you can take a look at the entry, which has been corrected for style since the initial draft, and determine if you believe it has received a fair hearing. As you know, I believe it has not and that, as a result, Wiki readers have been denied the opportunity to learn about this emerging and potentially vital contribution to the field of leadership. [It is also possible that my concern raises an important criticism about the wiki review process.]

I thank you for your consideration. -Joe Raelin

You have been repeatedly told this looks like an essay. You have repeatedly failed to see the forest for the trees and have continued to submit the same damn research essay. We do not accept essays. We are an encyclopaedia project. Separate from the essay concerns, this is so full of buzzwords that it reads like a badly-drafted corporate memo written by someone whose only reference material was a book of Pointy-Haired-Bossisms. The buzzwords need to go and this needs to be written in much clearer English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to put it in a much clearer fashion for you: The only problem with the review process here is the editor being incapable of accepting legitimate criticism. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a bunch of words in that draft, but I sure can't put them together in my head to get any meaning out. Especially the second paragraph of the Ideology section -- but really, the whole article reads like word salad. "Reflective emancipatory processes"? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect wording like this from a research essay aimed at higher-education institutes (which can understand the words being used and the context) or investors (who see such words and reach for their bank account information to get it to stop). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

03:39:24, 26 July 2022 review of submission by AlphaWolf294

Put simply, draft denied due to company not being notable enough. I am contesting denial because in that case, one would have to become a deletionist and remove half of the companies under the relevant page. I am okay with a no, but want to shoot my shot. AlphaWolf294 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlphaWolf294: please refer to the WP:GNG notability standard, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The draft currently cites no such sources, hence the failure to demonstrate notability, and consequently the decision to decline, is pretty clear-cut. If you can find and add such sources, you're welcome to resubmit — although I should add that you would also need to significantly redraft this so that it offers some sort of encyclopaedic value, not just promotional content.
As for your "one would have to become a deletionist and remove half of the companies" point, see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. As for Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, most of the category companies are almost unheard of (besides the obvious ones, and the few you'll know if you have anything to do with the space). One of them didn't even have its main source anymore because of how many years it has been, and a simple Google search couldn't find anything else on it. What are the requirements for notability in this instance, since the range is clearly between household name, google ranking, and a press release. AlphaWolf294 (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are >6.5 million articles on Wikipedia, and many got in before the notability standards started being enforced. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any independent coverage of this company. The sources there now are a BBB entry, a LinkedIn page, and a user submitted corporate directory. By that measure, every single one of the estimated 31.7 million businesses could make an argument that they should be on Wikipedia. Your best bet is to read WP:NCORP to see what the new notability threshold is. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:04, 26 July 2022 review of submission by Senyar

Hello Dears, this draft has been edited multiple times based on recommendations made by users who declined this article, we can't see a clear reason to decline this article again. please advice as this took more than 5 months now. the figure which this article is about, is a well known person in Arab region. all sources and proofs submitted. Thank you Senyar (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Senyar: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Doesn't matter how "well known" the person in question is, they still need to satisfy the requirements for notability, and the information must be sufficiently supported by references to reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Senyar: To echo what DG said above, I took a quick look at the sources and don't see in-depth profiles of the subject, and also don't see evidence that the subject's body of work meets the notability standards for creative professionals. See WP:NDIRECTOR for the guidelines. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:07, 26 July 2022 review of submission by JD at Syngenta Group

Following a requested move of Syngenta to Syngenta Group, consensus was to have a separate article of section written about the Syngenta Group. I've provided a draft in my user space, and seeked further consensus on separating pages. In May, the Draft:Syngenta Group was declined, as it was marked a copy of the Syngenta page, which isn't the case.

Since then, everything seems to be in limbo. I'm worried I've messed up the whole thing, and wasn't able to discuss this further with users involved, particularly KoA and Robert McClenon. So I am here asking for some help. I'd appreciate if someone could look at the pages/drafts and decide if I should withdraw the AfC proposal. Sorry if I did anything wrong with this submission.

As I am editing on behalf of the company, please be aware of my COI. Thanks in advance for your help. JD at Syngenta Group (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note:: Draft falls under discretionary sanctions (specifically, genetically-modified organisms and agricultural chemistry). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JD at Syngenta Group: My opinion is that the new group isn't functionally different enough for a fork. Everything from Syngenta's history could go in the history section, Syngenta (2000-2020), and the rest of the history for the Draft:Syngenta Group could go into a subsequent history section Syngenta Group (2020-present), after some editing to get the events to fit. It would be long, but would preserve more of the original entity's history, which dates back to 2000. Then we could move (rename) the current Syngenta article to Syngenta Group. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:34, 26 July 2022 review of submission by MilesAxlerod862


MilesAxlerod862 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesAxlerod862:
a) You need to ask an actual question, which you haven't.
b) Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any further.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:29, 26 July 2022 review of draft by Orange Sorbet


We're trying to get a page published and it's been rejected again. We've added more text, links and references so hopefully this will allow you to release this for us.

We're a little confused as another Welsh Choir, Morriston Orpheus Choir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morriston_Orpheus_Choir) has only one external reference, the other 4 go to its own website.

We just want to get this right so thanks for your help.

Orange Sorbet (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Orange Sorbet:
Firstly, I have to ask who is the "we" you keep referring to? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for the use of one individual.
Secondly, why do you say this draft has been declined (note: not rejected) "again" — it seems to me it has only been declined once?
Anyway, to answer your question, with the additional sources you've added, this may (or may not) meet the notability criteria. However, if I were to review this myself, I would still decline it for insufficient referencing, as most of the content is unsupported by citations, so there is no way of knowing where the information is coming from.
As for the article on the Morriston Orpheus Choir (the so-called OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), that has been there for many years, and may predate the current notability guidelines. You are quite right, it doesn't have sufficient sources to establish notability, and I have tagged it accordingly. You are of course welcome to take it to AfD, should you so wish.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: The deletion history says an earlier version of this article was indeed deleted in March 2010. @Orange Sorbet: I think the sources are close to showing notability, but there needs to be more to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I did a simple Google search and couldn't find any more independent coverage besides concert announcements. Can you find sources for the mostly unsourced history section? Possibly any books about the group that I might have missed? Sources in Welsh are acceptable as well. Worst case scenario, you could add a few properly sourced sentences to the group's entry at Dunvant#Sport and leisure, with a redirect. But also please read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:50, 26 July 2022 review of submission by FSurmi


FSurmi (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FSurmi:
a) You need to ask an actual question, which you haven't.
b) Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any further.
c) I also note that you haven't responded to the COI queries on your user talk page. Please do so now.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:04, 26 July 2022 review of submission by 2409:4041:8E1E:658E:0:0:2389:B705


2409:4041:8E1E:658E:0:0:2389:B705 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note: article has been rejected. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:39, 26 July 2022 review of submission by Wpcpey

I want to recover the article and add many sources, but the administrator refuses my question. I don't know why a TV programme that ended broadcast for 15 years still has a very strict requirements now. It seems it is extreme easy to delete the article, but very challenging to create it again. Wpcpey (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: WP:Deletion review § Market Watch (closed)
 Courtesy link: WP:Articles for deletion/Market Watch
Stop this. Continuing to agitate for this is liable to get you blocked. The AfD and DRV have run their course, and that is why it was rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous delete don't provide any source so it deleted by administrator. Meanwhile, the redirect is useless. So in what way you will accept the article recover again? So you mean this article is forbidden to be available in Wikipedia anymore? It is nonsense. Wpcpey (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey We will not accept an article on the subject due to the current lack of reliable sources. Justiyaya 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are from the official website and video. Why it is still not reliable ? --Wpcpey (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey: I'm sorry if this is frustrating, but you have to understand that Wikipedia bases its article notability assessments on what other independent sources write about a subject. It's not enough to just have existed, and any sources that are controlled by the entity are not useful to show notability. It would be as if I started a web site about myself and said that I should be on Wikipedia because of it. Market Watch doesn't seem to have enough coverage in sources to pass this strict notability threshold. Perhaps consider adding a descriptive sentence or two to the Market Watch entry in CNBC#Weekly, weekend and other programming, where the sourcing requirements are not so high? And change the redirect to that section. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as you have been told multiple times, we need independent, reliable sources. You have not provided them. No one has refused your question, but consensus does not agree with you. While you can proceed with @TechnoTalk's suggestion of adding a sentence, I really suggest finding something besides former TV shows to edit as you're not able to edit in line with notability guidelines. Star Mississippi 22:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is very difficult to add a descriptive sentence or two to the Market Watch entry in CNBC#Weekly, weekend and other programming since all the programmes have the individual article. Besides, Market Watch also have three different versions, broadcast in Europe, Asia and Japan. So it is a complicated case, which is different to other TV programmes. The notability guidelines also accept primary sources.--Wpcpey (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey Primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
use of the primary sources here is WP:PRIMARY #3 - stating a fact about what they believe Wpcpey (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wpcpey Yes, but that does not make the subject notable. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is still notable, since it can still briefly mention the TV programme.--Wpcpey (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wpcpey You may have whatever opinion you wish, but that doesn't change anything about the good comments you have been given. You will need to drop this and move on. This is bordering on WP:IDHT. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:48, 26 July 2022 review of submission by 196.67.2.145


196.67.2.145 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to recover the article 196.67.2.145 (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to "recover"; the draft has been rejected, not deleted.
At the same time, it has been rejected, and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @196.67.2.145: The article text is there for you to copy and save to a text file. I made some minor improvements and tried to find more sources, but was unsuccessful in finding enough to change the result. The article has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. The organization is certainly performing a worthy service to help the animals, but the sourcing doesn't show that the organization is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:33:10, 26 July 2022 review of draft by Delaneysteve


Yeah, right. So my submission about the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Marathon has been declined again. This time siting not reliable sourcing. Did the reviewers actually look at what was submitted? This is the third or fourth rejection. At no time did the reviewers actually specifically point to a problem with the piece, it was all generalities. There is seemingly no option for engaging with reviewers to see what they actually mean and find fault with.

And worse, when I compare what I have drafted to existing information about other provincial and city marathons, it is not out of line at all, and is better supported by references. So what gives?

Basically, I am through with this BS. And I am through with supporting wikipedia. It increasingly seems to me that this is an ego enterprise populated by folks who otherwise can't influence anything.

Delaneysteve (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missvain did an excellent job explaining the issues. It looks like you haven't provided independent sources discussing the race in detail. In order to demonstrate enough notability to warrant an article reliable sources with no connection to the subject have to provide significant coverage. That doesn't appear to be the case with this race. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delaneysteve, Existence is not notability. You have shown the race exists, now the question is, does anyone unconnected with the race care that it happens? Slywriter (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

03:32:19, 27 July 2022 review of submission by MCV2022

 Courtesy link: User:MCV2022/sandbox

I have received the comment NOTCV for my draft which has not been accepted for publishing. I wanted to reconfirm that I must write it as an article and not as a chronologically numbered list of biographical body of work, and then resubmit. Thank you for the kind assistance. Regards, Mamathi MCV2022 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Biographies must be written in prose, and all articles require citations from reliable and independent sources. Additionally, I would highly recommend reading WP:Autobiography before continuing, as autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Curbon7 (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:03:16, 27 July 2022 review of draft by Patachonica


Hi, is my draft ready for mainspace? Patachonica (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patachonica: please wait for your draft to be reviewed; the review will assess precisely that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:33, 27 July 2022 review of submission by ಜಸ್ಟ್ ಇನಿಟ್

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kabzaa


need to add movie name

ಜಸ್ಟ್ ಇನಿಟ್ (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. Can you elaborate, @ಜಸ್ಟ್ ಇನಿಟ್? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:28, 27 July 2022 review of submission by Wahab98


I have provided all the necessary things and cited authentic news websites and all as well, kindly do let me know what do I need to update more.

Wahab98 (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wahab98: you needn't do anything, as this has been rejected (twice), and won't be considered further. Moreover, you mustn't create any more copies of the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forget About the copies I a new to this platform won't create more now I know hot it works. but I have worked on this draft and make it sure to provided reliable independent and authentic sources as well, I am just asking reason to eject this draft so I can improve. Happy Writing
Thanks Wahab98 (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT:KURU_Footwear

Re: Draft:KURU_Footwear: My article got declined, but I am not sure why. It has many good sources. Please check my source analysis in the Talk page and let me know if you think these are good or not. Please let me know how I can improve. These company's shoes have been rated as one of the best walking shoes by several publications, as you will see by the sources provided. Downinit9 (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downinit9 Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, the company website, staff interviews, brief mentions, and annoucements of routine business activities do not establish notability. Your sources do not have significant coverage of this company itself, most of them seem to briefly describe its products. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 331dot for your clarification. What I struggle to understand, is how several of these sources are not considered significant. Some of these are not mentions and they have several paragraphs of info. Have you checked these?
Lassonde Entrepreneur Institute
Healthline
Wired
The Salt Lake Tribune
Ad Exchanger
Also, the article is only using content from what the sources say. I am familiar with this requirement. If you can find any single sentence in this article that is not supported by a citation, please point it out.
My only other question is that which parts sound like an aadvertising, so I can modify them. Can someone provide specifics?
I am guessing this sentence may be an issue "Several publications such as Good Housekeeping, Men's Health, LiveStrong, Footwear News, Well+Good and The Teal Mango have ranked it as one of the best walking shoes." Would you say I should remove this? Although, I didn't try to pump up the company. This is what the articles have said. Downinit9 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downinit9 Interviews with the founder of the company(two of the sources) or other staff(another source) cannot be used to establish notability, as the founder speaking about the company he founded is a primary source. The Wired source is a review of one of the company's products, and says little about the company itself.
It's promotional(not "advertising"), as I said, because it just tells about the company and what it does. It doesn't discuss the influence or significance of the company in its field as seen by others(not the founder/other staff). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot - I get your point that the Wired article and possibly some of the other articles are about the shoes and not the company. In this case, can I submit a new page for "Kuru" shoes, vs. Kuru the company?
I have seen that many companies have both company pages and product pages. Example Nike (company), Nike Air Max, Nike Air Jordan, or McAfee Company, Mcafee VirusScan, etc. Downinit9 (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Downinit9 It is possible for there to be an article about a model of shoe produced by the company but not the company, or as you point out, articles about both. If there were more sources like the Wired one, with unsolicited reviews describing the significance of the product and not based on interviews with company staff or materials from the company, that might work. Depends on what is out there for sources. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:41, 27 July 2022 review of draft by Jchiacchiaro


Hello,

I am writing because my submission was rejected for having too many primary sources. How many primary sources are too many? Our history is mainly captured through our parent company, but I have tried to find some third party sources to corroborate the details I've listed. I added a few additional sources today to supplement the sources. Please review and advise. Thanks!


scienceisreal (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jchiacchiaro: it's not so much a problem of having too many primary sources, but rather one of not having enough secondary ones. Close primary sources don't contribute to notability, and when that's all you're citing, by definition notability isn't established. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:28:24, 27 July 2022 review of draft by Bucha121


I recently tried submitting a draft for the company Triple Crown Sports, located in Fort Collins, Colorado. It was denied for lack of "reliable sources" and I'm trying to understand what I need to change. I used Triple Crown's own website as well as four different news articles about the company and its events in my short two-paragraph submission, so I'm trying to understand why these aren't considered reliable.

Thanks so much.

Bucha121 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are sources that are from both a reputable source and indepedent of the subject. Of course, the latter disqualifies the use of the subject's own website as a source (see WP:PRIMARY for more on that). In order to demonstrate notability, these reliable sources must also provide significant coverage of the subject, which none of the 4 other sources seem to do. Additionally, though some subjects may receive significant coverage in local sources, just because something is locally famous doesn't necessarily mean it is notable enough for inclusion on a global encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:15, 27 July 2022 review of submission by Zamboni54


I seem to have accidentally submitted two versions of a page for this museum. I received this notice "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Jim's Journey: The Huck Finn Freedom Center, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one." I have yet to hear back about the other submission of "Jim's Journey". The message came in about ten days ago so I'm just checking all is going forward. Thank you so much Zamboni54 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Zamboni54 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zamboni54: yes, I can see that the draft in your sandbox User:Zamboni54/sandbox was declined on the basis that another draft already exists occupying the correct name, at Draft:Jim's Journey: The Huck Finn Freedom Center. The latter hasn't been submitted for review, hence why you haven't heard back on it (not that you necessarily would after only ten days, anyway). You can submit it by clicking that blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DoubleGrazing! Although I've used WikiEdu in a couple of my classes my skill set seems to have disappeared. . . I've edited and updated a number of articles but have only contributed one brief one before this. Will keep my eyes open. Very best, Zamboni54 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:53, 27 July 2022 review of draft by 76.120.194.4


This article includes many citations to a book that is not available online. The reviewer rejected it saying that online sources are not available, and pointing to a citations guideline.

However, the citations guideline says no such thing, merely that : "If your source is not available online, it should be available in reputable libraries, archives, or collections. If a citation without an external link is challenged as unavailable, any of the following is sufficient to show the material to be reasonably available (though not necessarily reliable): providing an ISBN or OCLC number; linking to an established Wikipedia article about the source (the work, its author, or its publisher); or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context."

An ISBN was included for the book used most extensively.

Why does that not meet the criteria for a reliable source?


76.120.194.4 (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:00, 27 July 2022 review of submission by BassyOnDaBeat

18:11:00, 27 July 2022 review of submission by BassyOnDaBeat BassyOnDaBeat (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BassyOnDaBeat: what is your question? Your draft has been deleted twice; my advice, whether you want to hear it or not, would be to drop this now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:50, 27 July 2022 review of submission by Aayush nakhawa


Aayush nakhawa (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

04:15:46, 28 July 2022 review of draft by Kops2222


I seek help editing my new article on the Kpop music star Ahin. I worked weeks on this new article but it was declined for not having a neutral point of view. Could someone help me edit it to make sure that I am not being biased. She is the first big music star that I know of to speak fluent madarin, fluent English with an American accent, fluent Korean, and japansese and Spanish. This is very rare for a music star at the top of the fame, so i wrote an article about it, but my article was declined as it sounds too complementary, but that was not my intent. Could someone else edit it to make sure it is neutral?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lee_Ahin


Kops2222 (talk) 04:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kops2222: I see the draft was already resubmitted. I made some minor improvements but would like to suggest two general improvements you should make in the meantime: 1) do not include any info that isn't sourced. Otherwise, you will start to get into WP:ESSAY territory (which you have), and 2) do not use multiple YouTube videos as sources. It clutters the sourcing section and doesn't help show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. This is very helpful. Kops2222 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine name

Good day! In what way can I delete a template (Philippine name) and merge to Family name hatnote instead. Please feel free to assist me regarding that particular circumstances. Thank you very much! RenRen070193 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RenRen070193: this help desk only deals with drafts going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process; you should try another help facility, such as the TEAHOUSE. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:44:25, 28 July 2022 review of draft by Rayanfds


Rayanfds (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Made changes to the article and want to verify is it finally ready for submission or do i need to add any additional details if needed.[reply]

@Rayanfds: there's no such thing as 'ready for submission', really; it's by and large ready when you think it's ready. Whether it's ready for publication is what then gets assessed at the review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This application got rejected twice for notability of film but now its updated with new citations and informations. My question is does this article gets deleted if it again gets declined?. Rayanfds (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been declined twice, not rejected. Decline means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the reasons for declining; rejection means you cannot. If you keep resubmitting, especially without any real effort to improve the draft, it may eventually get rejected, but it won't be deleted unless there's a copyright violation or some other inappropriate content, or the draft gets abandoned completely (and even then, it will take six months or more before it's finally deleted). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rayanfds: I made some structural changes and fixed the grammar. You should find some reviews in the mainstream press before resubmitting. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your feedbacks. Rayanfds (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:47:36, 28 July 2022 review of draft by O.ominirabluejack


Hello.

I'm attempting to submit my draft article Draft:Kouyate family for review, but the wizard seems to be malfunctioning. Could someone please help?

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@O.ominirabluejack and O.ominirabluejack: You have to click on the blue submit button to submit it. But before you do, it might help if you sourced everything in the article. It's a bit light on sourcing, which is needed to demonstrate notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:08, 28 July 2022 review of submission by LittleNirvana


I have added sources that shows the WP:SIGCOV of the subject as advised by the last reviewer MissVain on her talk page.

LittleNirvana (talk) 13:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleNirvana: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:20:46, 28 July 2022 review of submission by Artistsbooksforever

Hi, can you suggest how I could make my sources better for the page above? All cited sources are independent, so I'm wondering if there's a length(in pages?) that makes an article or book chapter significant enough to be of value? Thank you in advance! Artistsbooksforever (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artistsbooksforever: it's not enough that the sources are independent and reliable, they must also be secondary, and provide significant coverage (of the subject directly). I had a quick look at the sources cited here, and couldn't find any that meet all these criteria, with the possible exception of Slash. Admittedly, two of them are offline, and two are behind paywalls (of which one, Forbes, almost certainly doesn't meet the WP:GNG standard), so if you're relying on those in particular then perhaps you could provide more details of their coverage? Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope I am not taking advantage of you, and I am starting to better understand how some of these sources may seem not significant in coverage.
If I'm getting this right, the publications below are to be considered independent, reliable and secondary, and they do provide significant coverage (multiple pages each about the publisher). How can I prove the depth of the coverage? Thank you!
Losowsky, A. (2013). Fully booked: ink on paper. Gestalten. pp. 94-99. ISBN 9783899554649
Glasner B., Ott S. (2012). Wonder Wood: A Favorite Material for Design, Architecture and Art. Birkhauser. pp. 96-97. ISBN 9783034606738
Tuitou, Haydée (Autumn 2018 – Winter 2019). "Mélanie Scarciglia & Christophe Boutin". Apartamento (22): 232–247
London Centre for Book Arts (November 8, 2021). Books: Art, Craft & Community. Ludion Publishers. ISBN 9493039528.
Roth, A., Aarons, P. E., Lehmann, C. (2017). Artists who make books. Phaidon. p. 305. ISBN 9780714872643 Artistsbooksforever (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Artistsbooksforever: No advantage taken. We're here to help. I restructured the article a little, but it needs more sources. I cannot tell from the books how much is about the company. Hopefully others with access to the free library will help identify the relevant info. I did a simple Google search to find more, and didn't see anything. The Forbes piece mentioned above is written by a "contributor", not a Forbes journalist, which diminishes its value as a reliable source. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:59, 28 July 2022 review of submission by Siddhesh Bhise


Siddhesh Bhise (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh Bhise You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:10, 28 July 2022 review of submission by I do care about


I do care about (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@I do care about: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't cite social media (this includes Reddit) and the Huffington Post piece is useless for notability (too sparse) due to being a listicle. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:16:33, 28 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by VwbTalent


Hi there! I was wondering if I could get feedback on my declined draft, Draft:Talent.com - the reason it was declined recently was that it reads like an advertisement. Granted, I do work for this company, but I believe I've written it from a neutral point of view. Is the issue the quality of sources?

FWIW, I modeled my entry off the Indeed Wiki page, so my entry has a similar writing style and quality of sources to that one. Maybe there's something I'm missing?

Any tips or advice would be appreciated, thanks!

VwbTalent (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VwbTalent: Try modeling it off of a WP:GA or WP:FA article such as Cracker Barrel. The problem with using another article as a template is that you essentially inherit any issues that article has. Most of your draft is about the fundraising/investment, which we earnestly don't care about unless something is massively unusual about it (read: something criminal). Your sources wouldn't factor into the advertizing decline - an article can both be well-sourced and still be written like an ad - but the lot of them are routine business news and thus worthless, minus one interview with company principals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VwbTalent: I made some structural changes, and added some more sources. You still could use more independent media coverage to show notability. For example, I couldn't source the number of offices. But helping 500,000 people every month get a job and having 28,000,000 visitors a month is certainly a notable thing, in my mind. at least. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

01:32:44, 29 July 2022 review of draft by 2603:6081:3502:858D:740D:357:8411:3AFC


I have updated this draft wikipedia page to follow wikipedia's notability guidelines. The original draft was declined because the page focused on the company but the references were focused on the company's product. I've since updated the draft to focus on the product. Can you please review my current draft and see if you think it meet's wikipedia's notability and referencing guidelines?

2603:6081:3502:858D:740D:357:8411:3AFC (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The way to get someone to review your draft is to submit it.
But just to say that one of the sources (Lifewire) is flaky, and another (ProPrivacy) is considered non-RS. If I were to review this, I'd decline it on the basis of insufficient reliable sources, but perhaps another reviewer will be more lenient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:15:00, 29 July 2022 review of submission by Lee Miao Si

Hi there, my wikipedia page has been more than 90 days. However, when I google it still doesn't appear. Anyone able to help with this issue? Thank you! Lee Miao Si (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Miao Si Wikipedia has no control over how quickly Google indexes articles. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is no longer an AfC matter, as the article was accepted three months ago. But FWIW, it hasn't been reviewed by NPP yet, and AFAIK that may prevent it being indexed. (Happy to be proven wrong on that!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:03, 29 July 2022 review of draft by ChrisJohnson112211


Hi, I generated a draft of an article that was declined by a reviewer: Hoary on July 19. Hoary and I had a productive exchange of suggestions and edits until 9 days ago and there have been no correspondence or updates on the status of my article since then. Is there any way to know where things stand with the editing and publication of my article? I don't know if Hoary has permanently rejected my article for new, unstated reasons, or if this is a normal delay in the process. If my article has been declined again, is there a way I can request a new reviewer who can help me resolve any new problems? Thank you for your help and advice with this. Chris ChrisJohnson112211 (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisJohnson112211: your draft is awaiting review. It hasn't been rejected. There is also no obligation on the earlier reviewer to review it again, or otherwise to continue working on it. What happens is that when a draft is declined and resubmitted, it goes back to the pool, and gets reviewed again when a reviewer happens to pick it up. No need to worry, all perfectly normal and par for the course. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response DoubleGazing. That is helpful to hear. ChrisJohnson112211 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:29:50, 29 July 2022 review of submission by Ntkn766

After this new film Khadak, actor Has lead roles in two notable films and hence actor becomes notable as per WP:ACTOR. Ntkn766 (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ntkn766: unlikely; NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films", and their filmography doesn't suggest that is the case. Besides, the post-Khadak work clearly isn't notable, at least not yet. In any case, this draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir can you please tell why khadak is not notable. between she has done significant role in many movies.. Ntkn766 (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Khadak isn't notable; I said her work since then isn't (yet) notable, as the newer films haven't been released, and there are no Wikipedia articles on them.
There also seems to be some degree of aggrandisement in what comes to describing her roles as 'lead' or 'significant'.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that this draft has been rejected. If you wish to take it further, you will need to consult with the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:36:35, 29 July 2022 review of submission by Director nmch


Director nmch (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Director nmch You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:20, 29 July 2022 review of draft by Kuralarasan DM


Kuralarasan DM (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuralarasan DM: you don't ask a question, but let me just say that the draft was unreferenced, with no indication of notability, and on top of that it was an apparent copyvio. Therefore I've declined it again, and also requested that it's speedily deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:58, 29 July 2022 review of draft by DMhc1


Looking for advice on resources for notability. I have input several new references but they are deemed insufficient. Can you provide an example for me? I have used the Anna's Tacqueria page as an example of a similar business. Thank you. DMhc1 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DMhc1: don't use another article as your guide, there's no guarantee that it complies with the rules; use instead the actual rules, most importantly the WP:GNG notability guideline. You basically need to show significant coverage of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Anything written by the business themselves, or anything based on their press releases or similar, is unusable, as is routine business reporting, any interviews, and anything that doesn't adhere to proper journalistic standards (such as all the various 'ten best products' reviews, publications with an agenda to push, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:53, 29 July 2022 review of submission by Fonzie10


I am requesting e re-review on this article since i am new to wikipedia on writing articles and i did a lot of mistakes and i m trying to fix them so i can publish this article. i am not a related party with the person i m writing about but i choose it as a start article and i want to improve it until its worth publishing

Fonzie10 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fonzie10: the sources cited are not sufficient to establish notability, and most of the draft contents are unreferenced. I think the earlier reviewer was quite right to reject this. This is probably not what you wanted to hear, but you did ask for a re-review so there it is.
I can understand why these sort of 'famous for being famous' people would like to give their career a boost by having a Wikipedia article published, but alas that's not why Wikipedia is here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you a lot for the fast reply , i agree with the rejection i m not objecting i just want to improve the article so i can be able to publish it i am not being paid or neither related to the person i m writing about , this article its not about giving a boost to their career but i choose this person since its one of the first public figures that did blogging in Albania since a fashion blogger was not a usual " title " to have in albania and the rest that came up later they changed their tittle to blogger but became famous to other ways not blogging thats why i choose this specific person. so can you guide me please how to write a decent article for wikipedia regarding this person? Fonzie10 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most useful advice I can give you (other than 'drop it') is: find several sources that fully and indisputably satisfy all aspects of the WP:GNG criteria; then summarise — without adding the slightest positive (or negative) bias — what they have said, clearly citing each source as you go. Keep it factual, keep it simple, and show that this person warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia (and BTW, being one of the first fashion bloggers in Albania ain't it). I doubt this is doable, but good luck all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:26, 29 July 2022 review of draft by Leslie Love Stone


My article was declined because it lacked the tone of an encyclopedia article. A few questions:

1. My intent is to create an article than can be linked to the already published article on the Adelaida District AVA. DAOU is cited but has no corresponding article. Ultimately, I'd like to do articles for all the cited wineries and Stanley Hoffman, also cited in this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaida_District_AVA 2. I modeled my article on the Tablas Creek article which is linked to the Adelaida District AVA article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablas_Creek_Vineyard 3. Can you point to something specific that does not meet your requirements? I definitely want to get this right!

Thank you,

Leslie Love Stone

Leslie Love Stone (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leslie Love Stone: IMO, the draft reads like marketing blurb, not like an encyclopaedia entry. Please see the advice at Encyclopedic style. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you—most helpful. As this is my first article, I am obviously making mistakes! Leslie Love Stone (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

08:42:45, 30 July 2022 review of submission by Helloricko

My feedback on the article submission was: "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, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." I accept and understand those comments and am happy to work to improve the draft to a more encyclopedic format. However I wanted to check your opinion on the extent of the issue... If you think it is impossible to write an article about an existing political campaign from a completely neutral point of view, then I won't spend time trying. Perhaps it's not the sort of thing wiki is suitable for (I struggled to find examples of other campaigns with wiki pages in my research for how to format the article). However if you think it is possible, but that I need to fine tune the wording and source material, then I will spend more time perfecting it in light of the comments. Thank you for your help. Helloricko (talk) 08:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:37, 30 July 2022 review of submission by Kuralarasan DM


Kuralarasan DM (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)This is My first article to my userpage and I partially completed my initial stage, so finally waiting for review[reply]



@Kuralarasan DM: this draft has been rejected as non-notable (and I might add promotional); it will not be considered further. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:52, 30 July 2022 review of draft by MSLF Project


I want to improve my draft and I would like to know to better write the submission. Is it the tone and language that need to be changed or the sources. I cant tell.

MSLF Project (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I submit Draft:University of Sfax flat Earth controversy to AfC?

My article "University of Sfax flat Earth controversy" was moved to draftspace by another editor 12(!) minutes after I created it. Because that editor's move left behind a redirect, it is now impossible for me (or any other non-admin) to move it back. Should I post it to AfC? Partofthemachine (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partofthemachine It's been suggested to you that it may be better for you to add it to the existing article about the university itself. But if you truly feel it should be a standalone article, yes, you should submit it for a review. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

07:27:51, 31 July 2022 review of draft by Maansouz


Maansouz (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maansouz You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:34:29, 31 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Talkies10

Not only passing reference she has individual significant coverage [1][2][3][4][5][6] and many more references actor is eligible under WP:ACTOR please have a look


Talkies10 (talk) 09:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Talkies10: this was deleted following an AfD less than a year ago, and since then her career doesn't seem to have progressed further, so you will have an uphill struggle to show sufficient notability now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't just resubmit a draft without any improvement, that is disrespectful towards the previous reviewer, and not helpful. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thanks for your response she is doing many projects Tharagathi Gadhi Daati and many recent articles are also there to show sufficient notability [7] you can check the references. in filmography i have to mention 2 3 projects.. Talkies10 (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:55:37, 31 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Talkies10

User AngusWOOF has arranged the references request you to kindly re review

Talkies10 (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1101552302"