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 Newspersonnow (talk | contribs) at 08:51, 23 August 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


August 12

03:01:44, 12 August 2022 review of submission by Inthetechworld


Inthetechworld (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Team,

I'm not sure why the page is being rejected. not sure how to write it without sounding like advertising. They're the facts about the company and I don't even have any affiliation with them, I just know about them from my previous employment with a tech company, they wore using their services and since i edited similar companies I've noticed they're not liste.

I need to understand how to do this without it being declined. I mean I've read many other wiki pages about other companies and I used a similar language.

I will probably be writing about more tech companies and projects, they will be corporations and some non-profit research and projects.

Please help with some bullet point guide lines and directions.

Thank You.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pax8 (Tech Company)
@Inthetechworld: Your sources are, in order, the company website, two dog-bites-man business reports, and a website which seems to lack an editorial policy or editor-in-chief responsible for fact-checking. The lot of them are completely useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Inthetechworld: Rather than go into a lot of detail, suffice to say that writing an article is very hard. You should read WP:YFA to understand the process. Don't give up, but just know that writing a successful article is something few new editors can do correctly. TechnoTalk (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:33, 12 August 2022 review of draft by Neophytte


I'm not clear why, after updating references, my submission was again immediately declined.

Neophytte (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neophytte: I looked at the difference between the previous decline and the more recent one, and you didn't really add anything new. Apple and Amazon links are not signs of notability, and the other three sources are just passing mentions. Scanning the other sources that were there already, it appears to be a large number of music web sites, showing him as a participant in a band or album, but not much about him specifically. Without profiles focused on him, it's hard to show that he's notable, at least as far as Wikipedia defines it. Take a look at WP:NMUSICIAN for more about the notability requirements for musicians. TechnoTalk (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to look through; I believe when he performed on national (Australian) TV and having a performance played as a backing music for a TV show in both Australia (Simon Townsend Wonder World) and United States (MTV video - Kiss and make up) meet criteria number 10 - is this a valid assumption? Neophytte (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:47, 12 August 2022 review of submission by Loisopokupr


I have added some third party cites as well as interviews that in course third party bylines.


Loisopokupr (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loisopokupr The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Interviews do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loisopokupr: Did you bother to read any of my analysis above? I was pretty explicit that interviews are useless for notability, and dismissed both the credited and uncredited ones. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:03, 12 August 2022 review of draft by 157.97.20.215


Hello! I have submitted three drafts of an entry on the "dot big bang" video game. Each was declined. With each draft, I addressed the feedback with improvements – the first was a notability issue, which I believe has now been supported with the inclusion of substantial press coverage; the second had a tone issue, which I have carefully improved to adhere to the available guidelines; the third issue was a lack of "reliable sources", which I believe has now been addressed with official web pages, and coverage from market-leading games industry outlets. The third draft seems to me to have fully addressed all the feedback given, but was rejected again – I am now at a loss on how to continue improving the article, and would value additional feedback from an experienced mod/editor. The draft article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dot_big_bang Thank you in advance for your help and feedback! I hope I can improve the article further and get the piece approved! :)

157.97.20.215 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
In summary, this is a situation where the usable sources are being choked out by the bad ones. Get rid of pretty much all the bad sources I spelt out above and that will go a long way towards helping this draft. (That being said, if you have some sort of connexion to Control Zee, you need to register an account and disclose before you go any further.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:20, 12 August 2022 review of submission by Pcwstallion


Thank you, I very much appreciate the feedback. The issue I have is that in wrestling, especially British wrestling, the commentary team will not have as much press about them as the wrestlers themselves, even though they add so much to the wrestling product. We are the people that make the connection between the wrestlers in an arena and the audience at home. We won't have "and starring..." in the credits as in wrestling we don't have credits because it would ruin the suspension of disbelief, however I have 20 years of experience, the last 10 have had a TV presence in one way or another having had or a hundred episodes/shows broadcast with me in them. Without wanting to sound like a diva with an enlarged ego, I think I am worthy of a page, especially with me branching out into other areas of entertainment. Not only that, but for the historical moments I have been a part of which may seem insignificant with regards to feats such as discovering a new species or curing a disease but within our sphere it isn't. Being the commentator for the first Pride wrestling event in the UK for example is massive within our circles but it is the wrestlers who, quite rightly, deserve the main headlines however this does does diminish my role within proceedings. I can certainly add in pages where I have my profile on their website but for the reasons I have listed, I cannot really add a lot more. Think of us as being a bit like weather presenters. We are part of the news team, but we wont get any glory or interviews (and there are weather presenters who have their own pages). I absolutely implore you to review my page again with all of this in mind. Thank you for your consideration.


Pcwstallion (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pcwstallion: The above doesn't help your case a whit, especially given that professional wrestling as a topic is under sanctions. Trying to big up yourself to the reviewers and helpers that man this page is a good way to get ignored, as it gives the impression you don't give a shit other than to promote yourself. People aren't going to risk being sanctioned for the sake of the professional wrestling iteration of Ted Baxter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand the reference or the anger at me. I've been nothing but polite and professional in my response and explanation of the circumstances. Your hostility has really caught me by surprise. I have re-read my response and I have no idea what has caused you offence but I apologize for whatever it was. 2A00:23C7:8700:C01:555C:4464:20E7:6412 (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a hint: You're not in a stadium cutting a promo for fans; you're trying to convince sceptical editors to act in a topic area where the standards for sanctions are lowered and partisanship is heightened. Writing what amounts to self-promotion only serves to torque off or worry those editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pcwstallion Experienced editor @Jéské Couriano is right about what he said, and yes, he can be straightforward (and blunt) in the way he says it. Below, he calls himself a "bastard helper from hell".71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.71.228.112.175. There is nothing in my post that is "cutting a promo for fans" and whilst I am sure he is experienced and perhaps even right about denying my article, he hasn't really explained anything in a straightforward manner at all, only added unwarranted vitriol at a perfectly polite new user. Using obscure references and seeing promos that aren't there before coming back with such furious anger as if I had personally done something to aggrieve him comes across as unhelpful, rude and could be construed as "cutting his own promo".
I am a new user, I do not deal with Wikipedia every day like your good selves who I am positive know all the ins and outs and all the intricacies and this should be appreciated. In fact the rules at the top of my page were:
Whilst I have no idea whether Jeske has assumed good faith, he has pointedly not taken on board the second and third rules. I get that you all must have to pore over a lot of articles and your patience may get strained once you've gone through a lot of them, I really do. I can take rejection but the level of abuse levelled at me was absolutely uncalled for and whilst I might have to wait for a page to be published somewhere down the line, I do feel that his unprofessionalism and rudeness must be highlighted to whomever oversees the moderators. "A bastard helper from hell" isn't helpful.
TLDR: I didn't come here for a fight, I came for help and advice. Pcwstallion (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pcwstallion: I invite you to re-read your initial post, but instead put yourself into the point of view of someone who hates wrestling (or hates the promotions who've hired you). You may not realise this, but what you've written does come off as promotional, and that doesn't encourage people to try and help you, it encourages them to hurry to WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (or, worse, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as the topic area is, once again, under sanctions). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This makes so much more sense. Thank you Jeske for this, and I wish I'd got that from your original post. I absolutely get that you know your stuff and it's obvious that you are very knowledgeable. Again, I have no wish to fight. I just want to be guided as a newbie (kinda gently). If I don't fulful the criteria for wikipedia right now, then so be it but I don't want to make an enemy of anybody in real life. If anything, I've had fun making a wiki profile and working out the way it all comes together, so even if I'm rejected right now that's cool, it's been a lot of fun and a great experience making the profile. I don't want you or your real world experience "cancelled" or anything silly like that. I appreciate honesty, which I think you are really good at, just maybe with some pointers. Not wanting to take the P, I can honestly see you know your onions so please do not take this as anything other than reconciliational. You have a job and after this experience I appreciate it more, nothing less. I absolutely accept whether you accept a page or not. I really hope we are cool as I really don't want to make an enemy of you :) Pcwstallion (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pcwstallion You haven't been rejected, even though your draft was declined. Keep reading, and keep trying. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:45, 12 August 2022 review of draft by Capttanviraina


I need to get it published in a day or two. Can someone help me with it please? Capttanviraina (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capttanviraina, why do you need it published so quickly? Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I m getting paid for it and I need to submit n get it published ASAP. I need money for my bills. Capttanviraina (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Capttanviraina: Tough. You're getting a Bastard Helper From Hell instead.
This wouldn't be accepted under any circumstances. All the sources are junk, it reads like some PR flack shot all over the page, and given these I have to assume you're a mercenary editor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so if I remove these links n request it again will it be posted? I will edit the language too if required. Kindly do advise , your help is deeply appreciated. :) Capttanviraina (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that would leave you with zero sources for a biography of a living person and no way to prove notability as Wikipedia defines it. What is your connexion to Parmar? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano For the connexions, she said she was getting paid when the article gets published, and she needs the money. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually see that responce, thank you.
@Capttanviraina: You are obligated to DISCLOSE as per the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. Failing to do so is grounds for a block, so disclose before you do anything else. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
disclose what? and I have everything ready but a little guidance would be appreciated. :) Capttanviraina (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your detailed ref-reply was before her admission, so you couldn't have seen it. We need that time machine. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am an entertainment journalist and I am writing on upcoming musicians in India. I don't know him personally neither have I met him, I have heard his music and he is becoming famous in India. Before anyone else made it on him, I wanted to. Capttanviraina (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have said above "I'm getting paid for it" you need to disclose on your talk page who is paying per the terms andconditions of editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the numerous non-responses by the OP to queries about paid editing, I have blocked them for WP:UPE. This has wasted enough of the community's time. --Kinu t/c 17:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

01:45:12, 13 August 2022 review of draft by SchinLBL


I made a draft for the upcoming Twice single “Talk that Talk” but I am unclear whether I should’ve created it into an article directly, waited until the single released or kept it as a draft. I checked other upcoming K-pop songs and they had their articles created without needing a draft. What should I do?


SchinLBL (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SchinLBL: whether one should go through AfC when creating an article depends more on the creator than the article subject. If you don't have the necessary user rights, you cannot publish directly. If you have a conflict of interest, you also should go through AfC. And even if neither of these applies, you may still prefer to use AfC, especially if you're not yet very experienced, so that you can have your draft checked, to reduce the risk of being deleted soon after publication.
In the case of an upcoming recording like this, there will almost certainly be a much wider choice, both in terms of quality and quantity, after it is released. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:44:51, 13 August 2022 review of submission by Kannaphaneendra


Kannaphaneendra (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kannaphaneendra: The lot of your sources are either stuff he says or quotables. None of it actually discusses him in any depth. If you are the subject themselves, identify to VRT via info-en-o[at]wikimedia.org as soon as possible to avoid being blocked for impersonation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano Generally we don't block for impersonation unless the person has an existing Wikipedia article about them. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:44, 13 August 2022 review of submission by Taskin Ahmed Kayum Artist


Taskin Ahmed Kayum is a Bangladeshi musical artist and composer. He was born 20 March 2000 in Dhaka. He has already verified as (OAC) YouTube official Artist channel and largest music platform on Spotify. His official Facebook Profile name "Taskin Ahmed Kayum" . He started his music career in 2020 with his own Mobile phone . He makes many instrumental music. But In 2022 he released his first tracks name "Crazyness Music truck and Relaxing Time ". He said that It's time to work on my own YouTube channel and international music platform like Spotify, Dezeer, Amazon music, iTunes, Soundcloud etc." Last of all he is proud to be a Bangladeshi verified musician."

Taskin Ahmed Kayum Artist (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Taskin Ahmed Kayum Artist: that's not a question, that's just a (slightly edited) re-posting of your (rejected) autobio draft. Do you have a question you want to ask us? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the draft to even suggest that you pass WP:NMUSICIAN so your draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP has been blocked for continuing their self-promotion at their now-deleted user page. The draft has been deleted as well. --Kinu t/c 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:30, 13 August 2022 review of submission by EddymiltonEdm2k


EddymiltonEdm2k (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are based on reliable independent sources, your draft doesn't have any. Theroadislong (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EddymiltonEdm2k: Theroadislong is spot-on. Literally all your sources are unusable - IMDb is a wiki, Medium has no editorial oversight, Infofamouspeople cites a murderer's row of completely worthless sources (Wikipedia included), and Mdundo is a download website I'm not even sure should be linked to, full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:53, 13 August 2022 review of draft by Leonaardog


Leonaardog (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonaardog: There's literally no article here; this is at best a barebones template. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

Four months (or more) for an AFC review? WTH?

I created an article last month on John E. Havelock, former Attorney General for Alaska and the author of the state's privacy amendment which protects (amongst other things) those seeking to terminate a pregnancy. He's been dead for almost a year. He was quite prominent in that state for many decades, running for the U.S. House in 1974 (finished second in primary) and U.S. Senate (finished second in general). It's a good article, well sourced, with a public domain photo, contributed to by another AK Wikiproject stalwart. For the first time ever I was diverted to AFC which contemplated a 4 month (or longer) delay in review. What's up? I contributed to another article, the attack on Salman Rushdie, which probably shouldn't even be an article, but I doubt it if was delayed by four seconds. P.S. That other AK Wiki editor suggested I drop the middle initial, with which I concur. Activist (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:John E. Havelock -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Activist: there are a few things I'm tempted to say in response to your rather adversarial message, but I'll try to keep this constructive — what is your question? I get the feeling that you're unhappy about having waited for two weeks for a review, but that isn't a question, nor does it otherwise tell me what help you might want (other than a fast track review, but that isn't the way this thing works). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned because somehow I was diverted to AFC when I had created that article. Only after reading your note to me did I find out that AFC is not mandatory, but rather a voluntary process. I don't know how that diversion occurred in my case. I've probably been creating articles on diverse subjects for a decade, and it had never happened before. I'll see if I can't simply replicate my article and remove the one I did last month, with the new (no middle initial or name) and that should resolve the problem. Activist (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Activist In the future, let us know you are experienced. It can be moved without losing the history while a Draft.Naraht (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:54:18, 14 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Hzt0208042508415531 tw


@Dan arndtI request a detailed explanation of why the draft was rejected: how to violate the "five pillars"? I am just translating articles in Chinese, and the whole process remains neutral.As the person in charge of the audit, you need to explain why to the original author.


Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: I am not a reviewer, but please ask your question in the space between the draft name and your signature. Thanks! weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 22:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw: Draftspace really isn't intended to be used to draft project-space pages. If this is intended to alert the community to the situation at zh.wp, you're better served writing about this at Meta. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a draft, and now it has been reviewed and rejected. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hzt0208042508415531 tw if this was intended to be an article published in mainspace it certainly does meet any of the standards. For example, there are no sources to support any of the claims made (note Wikis are not a reliable source so should not be used) and the way it is written is not suitable so the rejection is correct. Please see Your first article for guidance about how to create an article. However, if it can be sourced appropriately, the content likely belongs in the existing Criticism of Wikipedia article rather than a stand-alone article and certainly would not name individual editors, unless reliable sources published those names. S0091 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 I think you meant "does not meet" in the first sentence. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been passed in Chinese wikipedia, and the reference in it is reliable and authentic. It is a brief description of the foundation's actions. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're not Chinese Wikipedia, and have different policies and requirements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the article will be re-examined and approved. Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: no. It is now deleted, as contrary to our purpose. It is unverified, it is not an encyclopedic article with a clearly discernible topic, it lacks any kind of secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

Request on 12:46:10, 15 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 66.189.122.210


Hi. I'm unsure why my article was declined for "reading like an advertisement." I made sure all my sources were from news sites and business journals independent of the actual institution. The only thing I thought of that might sound like an advertisement was that I listed the services they offer, but I based that section off of what I saw in another Credit Union's approved wikipedia page (Digital Federal Credit Union has their services listed on the page). So if someone could explain why my article reads like an advertisement in more detail, that would be helpful. I referenced another credit union's approved page while making this as well, workers credit union. That page also has similar things to what I listed, including a section for their history, mergers, and awards. Everything that I wrote I based off of what was included in these other credit union pages that have been approved, so I am not understanding the reason for the denial. It is feeling kind of unfair.

66.189.122.210 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists, I have removed the content from that article as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP, that another article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. There are numerous ways an inappropriate article can get by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help. I read your comment about the branch listings and location, removed that section, and resubmitted for review. If there are any other problem areas that need to be removed or reviewed, please let me know. Talbot2222 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Talbot2222 Why would a credit union be notable? There are thousands of them. Is this one special somehow? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:47, 15 August 2022 review of submission by Larry432

I want to know why my page was deleted I checked and I saw nothing wrong with my article.

Larry432 (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larry432 If you have to ask why an article that states "He loved to eat bricks and loved to lick lemons" was deleted, you should not be editing Wikipedia until you mature more as a person and editor. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He had a disese called pica where people crave solid objects like paint,nails,rocks,sand or in this case bricks. He also had acidic deficiency so he needed to eat or lick things with high acid levels. Larry432 (talk) 12:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:48, 15 August 2022 review of submission by Fellafromukraine

Hey, nice to finally get the page reviewed!

Can I please get a more detailed response -- what parts of page need referencing, and what of the sources cited needs to be reevaluated and removed with the content that is referencing to the source Fellafromukraine (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fellafromukraine: every material statement, and anything potentially contentious, needs to be supported by a reliable source. This draft has several paragraphs, entire sections even, without any referencing. This is how the reader can verify the information given, and ensure that there is no original research included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:33, 15 August 2022 review of submission by KDuke58

Hello, Myslef and my team have seen that many amateur football teams have a Wikipedia page and so set about making one for our own side however our references (predominantly the FA full time site that lists and stores all club results for our side) were not seen as a suitable.. Could I ask what references would be suitable so that we may set this up like other teams have. Thank you!

KDuke58 (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KDuke58: We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking in order for us to have an article. If those sources don't exist at this time, we can't have an article yet. Also note that we do not accept notability-by-osmosis as a valid argument. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks so much! KDuke58 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KDuke58: Teams don't have Wikipedia pages here- Wikipedia has articles about teams. This is an important distinction. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other similar articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

07:03:46, 16 August 2022 review of submission by 122.160.153.168


Already included notability of the topic in various articles including newspapers, magazines, Please refer to the list below covering the topic under review for notability, I need advice about missing points here, 

1. "PERICENT company disrupted itself from a mere IT service company to high-end enterprise software product company". jantv.in. 2021-12-03. Retrieved 2022-03-07. (Online Newspaper)
2. "Most of Legal Proceedings and Practices are Completely Paper Based Operations, the Legal Industry Still Consume Largest Volume of Physical Paper". India Legal. 2022-02-25. Retrieved 2022-03-03. (Online Newspaper for the legal industry)
3. "Pericent Technologies: Streamlining Roles, Processes, Documents & Policies through BPM/DMS via End-to-End Handholding". enterprise-services.siliconindia.com. Retrieved 2022-03-03. (Online and Printed Media Magzine)
4." Pericent Technologies: Simplifying Business Experience with Enterprise Solutions". InsightsSuccess. 2017-09-26. Retrieved 2022-03-03.
"PERICENT". www.zaubacorp.com. (Online and Printed Media Magzine)
5. "Do Physical Paper-based Operations are still a Reality in Government Departments". APN News. 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-03-07. (Online News)
6. "docEdge DMS Reviews - Software Features 2022". Financesonline.com. 
"10 Best Performing BPM Solutions Providers". (Online Third Party Publishing)

It has been a very long time since I am trying to set up the topic, looking for kind help to finally add it Wikipedia 122.160.153.168 (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources. An article about a company should not merely document the existence of the company and tell us what it does. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:53, 16 August 2022 review of draft by MirajkarShahina1


MirajkarShahina1 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi I am Shahina, Nabeel's mother who made and submiited this draft, this is authentic, please accept it and publish it, the previous draft was made by Nabeel himself, please reject that, Nabeel is a well known actor, please verify online and publish my draft.

Thanks

@NirajkarShahinal: Setting aside the cites being in the completely wrong spots and the obvious WP:BROTHER argument, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of these sources help for notability or for biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:58, 16 August 2022 review of submission by Bob Dubery

I don't understand why this is regarded as unsatisfactory. I have provided sources - or a source. The source is the liner notes for the album that the article deals with. The notes include a multi-page essay with the author clearly identified. I have noted all this in the article.

I'm not looking for an argument. I am genuinely puzzled as to why this article is deemed inadequate. If I don't know what the shortcoming is here, I will likely repeat it. Bob Dubery (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has a single primary source which does not help with any notability, see WP:NALBUM for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article must summarize multiple independent reliable sources(for this process we look for at least three, generally), showing how the topic meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, of a notable album(as noted by Theroadislong). 331dot (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob Dubery It's the independent (click here) part that is not met by using the liner notes as a source -- that material is not independent of the album. Sources need to consist of what other people have said (and published) about the artist or album. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:10:32, 16 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bathroominfo


Hi Articles For Creation Help Desk,

I tried setting up a Wikipedia page for my employer Durovin Bathrooms. When doing so, I disclosed that I was an employee being paid to do so and then filled out some information on the page. I mentioned the company's founding date, the kind of items they sold and as they are an ecommerce shop, the platforms they sold on. I also filled out some of the information on the company info box. The draft was marked for deletion because it was seen as "just blatant advertising". However, I felt I had just factually described the company and what they do in accordance with the guidelines and similar to how other company pages are written. Because of this, could I please have some advice on how to improve the next submission? For example, next time should I not mention the platforms they sell on and instead simply say that they are an ecommerce site? Also, I currently don't have a detailed account of the history and founding but am working on it, would the incorporation of this improve the likelihood of it being approved?

Kind Regards,

Matt

Bathroominfo (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources, then there is not much chance he company would be notable enough for an article. Also, stop trying to add links to their site as sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bathroominfo Like many people in your position, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. When you say that you "had just factually described the company and what they do", this is exactly what Wikipedia is not for. Wikipedia does not have "company pages", not a single one. It has articles about companies. This is a subtle but important distinction. Mere existence is insufficient; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Such sources should not include the company website, staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or other primary sources.
If you are using other articles as a model, you should use those classified as good articles. Otherwise, you run the risk of using one as an example that is problematic. As this is a volunteer effort where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us(in many ways that I won't list here). We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot,
Thank you for the comprehensive reply, I see my mistake now. I'll report back to my bosses and I'll try again at a later date when we have the relevant sources.
I looked at the Wickes page and Victorian Plumbing page initially as they are similar (but obviously much larger) shops to us.
Kind Regards,
Matt Bathroominfo (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ScottishFinnishRadish,
Thank you for the reply, I see the issue now.
Sorry for the second question, but you said to stop using links to their site as sources, I did this when contributing two paragraphs about different types of sinks to the Sink article by linking some articles on their site that included explanations of those specific fixtures.
Just so I fully understand my mistake and don't make similar ones in the future, could you please elaborate?
Is the issue that the site is not seen as a reliable source because it also sells sinks, or that the articles were not comprehensive enough?
Kind Regards,
Matt Bathroominfo (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bathroominfo Articles about companies are not meant to list or describe all of their products. I can't see the deleted draft, but that might have been an issue. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:05:19, 16 August 2022 review of draft by Geraldo Geraldo Saal


Geraldo Geraldo Saal (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can i change to get my article into the Wikipedia space?

You could suggest how they pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:13, 16 August 2022 review of draft by AyrtonHolloway


  • Hello! Please take a look at this article here for review. It has since been updated but would love to hear your feedback for approval. There are many independent sources here and with this author being a best seller and on the notable Storylines Children's Literature Foundation of New Zealand Notable Books List for 2014, I believe this subject is notable. He has also been published by Random House/Penguin and Allen & Unwin (Please see the sources) Thank you --AyrtonHolloway (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AyrtonHolloway (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AyrtonHolloway: this draft will get reviewed in due course, no need to flag up here.
That said, having taken a very quick look at it just now, I must say you're not doing the draft any favours by REFBOMBING it so heavily; this just makes the reviewer's job that much more arduous, and raises the risk that a reviewer will just give it a miss and move on to something else instead. I'm not saying you should leave out references that are needed, of course, I just don't see how eg. the mere fact that this person published something in 2018 requires eight sources to support it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

05:07:48, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Tinku9550


Tinku9550 (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinku9550: what is your question? The draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:20:40, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Lucynder

Hello, I have been declined once again for the submission of draft. I'm not sure why it's been rejected, I have read other wiki pages on notability and referencing of movies and I used a similar approach. Can I have assistance, correction and a detailed guideline in order to get the page published?

It would be helpful if you could provide more information as to why it is been rejected. Please help with guide and directions.

Thank you Lucynder (talk) 07:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucynder When referring to the content of the encyclopedia(not policies/guidelines), Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Beware in using other articles a model- that won't help you if those other articles you use are themselves problematic(which you wouldn't necessarily know unless you have experience here). As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways inappropriate articles can get by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
To pass this process, article drafts generally need at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage. You have two. If you found one or two more reviews to add, that would help. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NFILM for the criteria it needs to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:02, 17 August 2022 review of draft by Brysais


Brysais (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I didn't capitalize the surname of the subject of the article (Yossi Maurey, not maurey), but I can't find a way to alter the title. How do I do that? Thanks!

Brysais The exact title is not relevant to the review process. If and when your draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. Changing the title requires a page move anyway, so it saves a step to wait until it is accepted before moving it. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I figured out how to move the page before I saw your response. Thanks! Brysais (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:18, 17 August 2022 review of draft by Prettyneededchill


The page was rejected for not showing significant coverage but I'm unclear as to what qualifies for significant coverage. We have over 1000 pieces of media coverage from the past 3 years so choosing the right one is tricky. Most pieces cover report and investigation findings in more than just passing mentions, rather than the organisation itself, for example here, here and here. Does this count as published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject matter?

Prettyneededchill (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prettyneededchill: significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) must be of the subject itself directly, not of any indirectly related matters. So in your case, the sources should expressly cover the CMF as an organisation, not one of its reports, or its people, or what a CMF representative may have said about something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at similar organisations, such as Plastic Soup Foundation and their references are similar in nature to what is available for Changing Markets Foundation, i.e. it references the organisation but is actually about its research findings and campaigning. If the coverage is significant but of a campaign wholly run by the foundation, is that not enough, as seems to be the case for Plastic Soup? Thanks for your help :) Prettyneededchill (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prettyneededchill: don't look at other articles, look at the relevant guidelines (namely WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT). There will inevitably be articles out there which don't comply, either, but that doesn't mean we should create more of them. Rather, we should ensure that your article is up to the required standards, and also bring those other articles up to scratch. (Actually, in the case of the Plastic Soup Foundation article, the sources were flagged up as not meeting ORGCRIT, but somehow it seems to have slipped through.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll do some more research! Prettyneededchill (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:46, 17 August 2022 review of draft by BarI2021


Hi, This is a draft on an acting proffesor who published articels, head of a dep', wrote a few books, has a radio station and won grants and awards. How come it gets declined over and over again? is it because he is in Israel? would love help, thank you, --BarI2021 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BarI2021 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BarI2021: have you actually read any of the decline notices and comments? This has been declined each time for lack of notability. Whether or not "he is in Israel" has nothing whatsoever to do with this; Wikipedia has plenty of articles on Israel-related topics. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BarI2021 Large sections of the draft have no inline citations. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:12, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Zachariah Junior-Eurovision

I had my article declined not I'm not sure why. I wrote it about myself and stated that and it was not bias. Zachariah Junior-Eurovision (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zachariah Junior-Eurovision It most certainly is biased to write about ourselves, as we naturally write favorably about ourselves. While not forbidden, it's strongly discouraged to write about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Zachariah Junior-Eurovision — that's because this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site. This means that you shouldn't just write about yourself, you should summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources (such as newspapers and magazines, TV and radio, etc.) have said about you. And even then, it shouldn't be you who does that, you should leave it for someone else who is not connected to you to do the writing. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:35, 17 August 2022 review of submission by Burgelis

I see that local electeds dont necessarily qualify for a Wikipedia article unless they are notable- my first election win was historic- as the first out member of the Milwaukee County Board (legislative body). Though I've only provided 10+ sources ranging from CNN to local affiliates and, there are dozens more including USA Today and business journals I could provide for additional press coverage- would that be preferred? For the self promotion question, would it be acceptable for me to hire someone else to make this same submission? That seems counter productive to me. Thanks for helping me better understand placement and internal policies. -

Burgelis (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burgelis (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Burgelis: just to be clear, nobody and nothing "qualifies for a Wikipedia article unless they are notable"; that's just the name of the game. By and large, anything of the "first X to be Y" type isn't inherently notable, meaning that it requires secondary sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria.
You can of course "hire someone else" to write the article for you, but please be aware that they will need to declare WP:COI and WP:PAID before they even get started. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

03:23:17, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Tarawade.Atul


Reference given is from independent sources but are in regional language. The draft is about political candidate and have support of Mr.Yogesh Tilekar. Tarawade.Atul (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarawade.Atul as you will have seen by now, the draft has been deleted as overly promotional — a common fate of attempted autobiographies, and one of the many reasons why they are not encouraged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:25:58, 18 August 2022 review of draft by BCross2003


I'm trying to get an article published however I am being told that my sources aren't reliable. However, my activity with the Grammy Award-winning artist Amy Wadge is everywhere. I wrote the song 'Just The Same' with her on her latest EP which is available on all major platforms, to which I am credited by the PRS and PPL. Everything else is difficult to source as my earliest releases were between 2003 and 2010.

BCross2003 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BCross2003, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. A article needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (in this instance Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music) in order to have a stand alone article. Notability in general requires 2-3 reliable sources providing significant coverage to the subject. The two sources in the article (currently amazon and apple music) are not reliable. Justiyaya 06:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read WP:conflict of interest Justiyaya 06:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do I just need to add another source on top of the other sources? Thanks for the reply btw BCross2003 (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BCross2003 you would likely need to declare a conflict of interest with the subject first (instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI). Then find two reliable sources (providing significant coverage) regarding the subject (a list of sources usually considered reliable can be found at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES). Then submit the article for review after adding the sources in. Justiyaya 07:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BCross2003 Unless you can show (backed up by reliable sources) that you satisfy the WP:MUSICBIO notability, of which there is currently no indication, then you will need to demonstrate notability via WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. You currently cite no such source, therefore you need to add three or more.
You also need to support every material statement by citing a reliable source. Currently almost the entire draft is unreferenced. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing stuff indeed! Does the fact that my name is clearly on the record title count for anything? BCross2003 (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a word, no. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BCross2003 Amazon, etc. just show that the music exists. Having co-written a song is not enough to make you notable in Wikipedia's definition, unfortunately. Notability for a musical artist requires, most commonly, that independent journalists have written about you (and not just from interviews with you). The blue word in a reply above, music, is a link with the notability guidelines. Please read that. It's a high bar. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justiyaya, @BCross2003 I believe that Amazon and Apple Music are reliable, but not independent. Those blue words are clickable links; please read them. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you're right that it is not independent but likely reliable and using that would've probably made it clearer. I'll take note next time answering, thanks :D Justiyaya 11:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just to let you know I have changed the citations which are now all reliable sources and clearly prove my involvement with Amy Wadge and my songwriting credits. I truly hope this helps.
Many thanks,
Benn BCross2003 (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BCross2003: I don't think anyone is doubting your involvement with Wadge; what we're trying to say is that that alone doesn't make you notable in Wikipedia terms. If that's your main musical achievement, then you don't meet the MUSICBIO notability test. There is also a general notability standard, GNG, which could justify an article, but that requires significant coverage (of you, directly) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:03, 18 August 2022 review of submission by Customweb01


Customweb01 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Customweb01 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This is the English Wikipedia, contributions need to be in English. If you are attempting to translate an article, keep in mind that what is acceptable on one version of Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable on another, as each version is a separate project. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:31:03, 18 August 2022 review of submission by Knowledgeleaders


Knowledgeleaders (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Knowledgeleaders? Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:11:53, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Roman Maler


Roman Maler (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello everybody, after several declined admissions I now ask for help. Today I added two further exhibitions of the artist, a book that was published about his actual exhibition in the Lemke House and I changed the source of the german television weblink from a youtube-video to the original website of the tv channel (German TV "ARD"). Can you tell me, what the problem is, what I maybe I don't understand? Thanks a lot.

Your draft was reviewed and declined by a fake reviewer User:Gorutna now blocked, it would be worth re-submitting it, the Museum collections are what will make it pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I just re-submitted the draft. Roman Maler (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:15, 18 August 2022 review of submission by Wstnharris

I'm not sure why this has been declined, apart from the Personal Life section being light on sources. Everything else has been sourced to my knowledge, and I'm not sure what's missing or needed based on the "not adequately supported by reliable sources" feedback.
The Conflict of Interest page was also linked as an additional comment. I declared myself a COI before starting the article (I'm one of his grandsons) thinking it's the right thing to do, but are there extra steps I need to take because of that? Can I even write about him because it's a COI?
Thank you for your time. Wstnharris (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content like “Baum is an avid golfer and remains true to his Cincinnati Reds. He also collects sweatshirts from colleges across the country.“ is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and being a classmate of Jerry Rubin confers zero notability. The personal life section has virtually no sources we cannot accept any content that you add from personal knowledge. Theroadislong (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wstnharris I see that you took it out, but for future reference, mentioning Jerry Rubin doesn't tell the reader anything about Dave Baum. Cheers. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Wstnharris, there are several unreferenced statements in there — basically, if a paragraph doesn't have at least one citation, it's by definition unreferenced. Especially personal details and anything potentially contentious needs to be supported by a clear and immediate inline citation, see WP:BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:58, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Helenjbaileyauthor


Helenjbaileyauthor (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my submission been declined for 'dumping citations at the end?'

These have not been dumped at all and having read multiple wikipedia pages I cannot understand why this one is being decline?

Many thanks for your response.

Helenjbaileyauthor In a Wikipedia article, sources are provided in-line with the text, so it is known what sources source which information. If done properly, the actual sources appear at the end, but are placed within the text. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E/C It is hard to tell if your draft is original research or not, if the citations were placed directly after the content that they support it would make it easier to evaluate. Also please remember to sign your posts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok thank you. I do know how to do this but thought you preferred everything sourced at the end. I'll cite properly and hopefully it will then be published. Many thanks! Helenjbaileyauthor (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:27, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Dawnpalmyra


Greetings. I am requesting a review of a recently re-submitted draft article for Postindustrial Media. Thank you and regards. Dawnpalmyra (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige, your draft is still blatant advertising from beginning to end, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawnpalmyra The first citation comes half way down the article. Where is the preceding information coming from?
And please remove all those inline external links. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:19, 18 August 2022 review of submission by 103.5.132.35


103.5.132.35 (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:07, 18 August 2022 review of draft by MTVsleuth


Hello,

I do feel I need to ask questions as this is one of many Television Personalty Biographies I intend to write. I just need help getting the format and cites down.

For the Biography of Ashley M Lands, I wanted to choose Another model & Tv Personality that had a similar career trajectory that also has a Wikipedia Page. I chose Ashley Graham, I have linked her Wikipedia page here for reference. Ashley Graham (model)

If you look at the current page I have written about Ashley Lands, I believe it is very similar to Grahams. If you look at Grahams page, it also includes references and statements I feel would be considered "puffery" as well her personal website is used to verify sources and cites.

If you can, which cites on this declined article of (Ashley M Lands) are not acceptable? IMDb is the most trusted source I found, so I chose to use it the most often as that is a verifiable media platform that lists Lands in the cast. Should I removed every single mention of her personal or owned website except listing it is her 'official website'? Also, I had previously used media articles and interview with Lands I found to tell more of a story of her career, but I was told the article did not "read like an Encyclopedia Entry". I am feeling jammed on what I am allowed to use.

Please Advise, Charles (MTVSleuth)

MTVsleuth (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask -- Is it possible I should make these TV Personality Entrees shorter than I am? Example: List Ashley M Lands 68 Television credits in a table below but not give a written statement about them?
Thanks! MTVsleuth (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MTVsleuth: The problem with aping an existing irrelevant/tangential article is that you're going to inherit the flaws of that article. As to your sources, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Absolutely none of your sources help for notability, and the only claim that could feasibly be made is one we heavily discount for very sensible reasons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove/replace all instances of IMDb it is absolutely not a reliable source and cannot be used, her own website is also useless as it is a primary source. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"context of that fucking reality show" --
Absolutely disgusting language from a moderator. MTVsleuth (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a moderator. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about your "title". It's the fact that just because I am a contributor in a space you don't like, you feel the need to curse at me while I am trying to learn.
- Charles MTVsleuth (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not why I am cursing. I am cursing because the same sort of source is being repeated ad nauseam. You try the same sort of thing being shoved in your face six or seven times in a row. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that is what you were supposed to do to show the scope of the project.
I am simply trying to create articles that showcase more GeNZ and Millennials Media Personalities as they are not represented on Wikipedia. But I have never contributed so aggression like "ad nauseam" "fucking show" is not helpful. MTVsleuth (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want someone to give you glasses that view Wikipedia in rainbows and pastels, then my job is to break those glasses. I am not averse to pointing out if someone is actually citing good sources, but that is not the case here, and I am not going to hold back my criticism of a source (or sources) just because it hurts the feelings of the person citing it.
As to the matter of "GeNZ and Millennials Media Personalities"[sic] the reason they're underrepresented on Wikipedia is because of the dearth of sources that report on them in the first place that Wikipedia can accept. Writing about them on Wikipedia is a daunting task in and of itself especially when we also have WP:Biographies of living persons (which has legal considerations and cannot be ignored) to consider. A reality show star is a textbook example of a media personality we shouldn't have an article on barring reliable reporting about events divorced from the reality show. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MTVsleuth: The draft has been reviewed and declined thrice by three different reviewers, one of whom explained that imdb can't be used as a source, and there are comments on the draft from a fourth reviewer about the use of imdb as a source. Take that information to heart and remove all references pointing to imdb, and take the information in Jéské Couriano's thorough source evaluation to heart and remove all sources that are not reliable. At the moment there is no actual claim to notability in the article – a person doing her job isn't notable in itself. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:40, 18 August 2022 review of draft by MTVsleuth


MTVsleuth (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a follow up as it pertains to articles I am writing.

I will once again reference this page (Ashley Graham) as this entire article contradicts my submitted pieces.

This week, I have been told I cannot use the following to verify a TV personality or Model:

  1. 1 IMDB film credits
  2. 2: Interviews with the person discussing their career
  3. 3: Digital Magazine References to Vogue (USA)
  4. 4: The persons personal website
  5. 5: Articles in Spanish (or other languages)
  6. 6: The models Agency website page (even though the original moderation stated that I HAD to add a current agency website that listed the persons name. They said this was an absolute MUST).
  7. 7: IMDB Runway show credits
  8. 8: YOUTUBE (even if the TV series/Podcast/set of Interviews were only on Youtube)

However, all the the aforementioned that are rejected to reference notability are all contained in the Ashley Graham Wikipedia.

At this time, I would like to rephrase my question as it seems as the rules are not applied to all media personality entrees: What type of cite should I be using to create pages about TV personalities and models?

Best, Charles (MTVSleuth)

Stop focusing on the irrelevant/tangential article that likely needs to be deleted in the first place and start focusing on your draft. Using another article as a yardstick, especially one that is blatantly tagged as having issues and which completely predates Articles for Creation as it exists now, is doing you absolutely no favours what-so-ever.
We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. Any reporting on her reality show appearances is considered routine coverage and thus useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See other crap exists! Theroadislong (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:26, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Bernard-Riley-artist


My page Bernard-Riley-Artist was rejected “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia But I do have coverage in independent sources, an article in the New York times and a long 7 page feature in American Artist. He also had paintings in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, the Corcoran in Washington DC, other museums and many private collections. I think that should qualify for an article. Please help Thanks John Bernard-Riley-artist (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard-Riley-artist (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernard-Riley-artist: Your sources are all missing critical bibliographic information (article title, article byline, page numbers). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been declined not rejected. The references are appalling please read WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting them. It isn't possible to verify any of the content, see WP:NARTIST for the criteria you need to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:49:08, 18 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Tigin taagane



Tigin taagane 20:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigin taagane: Your only source is a Facebook login page. Not surprising that it was rejected. (We don't cite Facebook in any event due to its lack of editorial control.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:51, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Meenween


Hi, I was trying to find out more about why this article was declined for publication. I specifically picked a challeging entry so I could see what was out there in order to better support the previous iteration of this subject. The user Gorutna stated the subject did not meet the threshold of notability, however this seems disingneous as they did not leave any specific feedback. That is counter to the mission of wikipedia to improve and grow topics of interest through dialog. Additionally Gortuna feels like a vandalism profile. Reading their (talk) page I get the sense that this account was started to take down articles at will since they were already blocked from commented .

Meenween (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Meenween: I'm more concerned with the very extensive quotes with every cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meenween The notice in the draft did give specific feedback: it said "see the guidelines on the notability of people". All of those blue phrases in the notices are clickable links that give detailed policies. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:59, 18 August 2022 review of draft by Melbawab


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am contacting you in regard to a draft page Draft:NumXL, which was recently declined.

We have several mentions of the software in published papers, but as a tool in their research, not to document the software for-say.

Examples:

1. Sunitha Kumaran | (2022) Modelling the downside risk potential of mutual fund returns, Cogent Economics & Finance, 10:1, 2015084, DOI: 10.1080/23322039.2021.2015084

2. Return Based Risk Measures for Non-Normally Distributed Returns: An Alternative Modelling Approach

3. Seasonality of deaths with respect to age and cause in Chitral District Pakistan

4. Efficient Unsupervised Classification of Hyperspectral Images Using Voronoi Diagrams and Strong Patterns

Can this type of 3rd party publication satisfy the requirement for eligibility to be included in Wikipedia?

Thank you for your time, and look forward to hearing back from you.

Melbawab (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Melbawab: None of those matter because (1) you're not citing them as you should be doing to demonstrate WP:Notability (in fact, the draft is completely unsourced) and (2) mere mentions do not help a whit for notability, even if you did cite them; we need in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources about the software that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thank you Jéské. Melbawab (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

01:20:38, 19 August 2022 review of submission by PeteredOutParker

My page draft was declined because it was promotional/advertising. I would like to know how to write the page so it is not promotional or advertising. I thought it was written neutrally with thorough detail and appropriate links, and do know understand why the draft was denied, or what I could do to make the draft acceptable. I'm looking forward to the help! Thanks!

PeteredOutParker (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PeteredOutParker: take a look at Neutral point of view. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! I've taken a look at this and understand the concepts well, but still believe the draft was written in this neutral point of view. Could you point out an example from my draft on how this could be written better? PeteredOutParker (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:26:00, 19 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Thepublich


hi I need help editing draft for Jason Innocent.


Thepublich (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepublich you need to be more specific: what help do you seek? (In any case, the draft is pending review now.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft was declined. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:32, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Uwwo


To whom it may concern,

I understand that this article has been rejected. I do not understand the reason for rejection. The wikipedia entry on YERUN is apparently very similar and in fact the 'mother alliance' from which YUFE originated. I have used this artilcle as a template and I have provided the alliance websites as source using cite the web as referencing template. I have understood the review request yesterday and thought this was due to weak referencing which I have strengthened this morning. Given the article on YERUN is similar and has been accepted, I do not understand why this article on YUFE, which I intended to expand, has been outright rejected. May I kindly ask for feedback as to why this is the case? If reliable resource is the problem, then I need to understand why, in case of the YERUN network, the call website is deemed sufficient but not in case of my article.

Thank you and best wishes,

Uwe

Uwwo (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwwo: it has been rejected, because the content is pure marketing blurb, and there is no indication that the organisation is notable as the only source cited is its own website.
As for the other articles you refer to, see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uwwo (ec) Please see other stuff exists. The draft you used as a model has similar problems as to what you wrote, and I have marked it as such. This is why it's not a good idea to use other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there are many ways inappropriate content can get by us. We can only address what we know about.
Your draft just tells about the organization and what it does, and is only sourced to the organization itself. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Press releases, interviews, the organization website, announcements of routine activities, brief mentions, and primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, so the reviewer must have felt it unlikely that appropriate sources exist to summarize. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:04, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Omniscientia101


Hi! I am requesting assistance with regards to a comment made by a previous admin who remarked that there are too many primary sources and moved this article into drafts. Linkedin YouTube videos, tweets, and any other primary source material has been removed - except links to the company's products, which are directly relevant to their function and thus are kept as footnotes. The relevant footnotes are 25, 26, and 27. Do these count as primary sources?

Has the issue in question been fixed?

Omniscientia101 (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscientia101 Most of your sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company(not merely reporting the routine activities of the company like personnel decisions or business transactions) showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. What are your three best sources in the draft? Do you have an association with this company? 331dot (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:25, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Canada2026

I have added many new references but I am not sure if they count towards notability. I have tried to model the page after other soccer players in his league that have published pages and I am not sure what the difference is between his page and theirs Canada2026 (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Canada2026 Beware in using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles; if the articles you used as a model are themselves problematic, you may not be aware of why and would duplicate the problems on this draft. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. Most of the sources you offered are not significant coverage of Finn. The criteria for sports figures has changed recently, there is no inherent notability any longer- sports figures must be shown to meet the general notability guidelines for biographies. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:10, 19 August 2022 review of draft by MagneticMomentMuon


Hey there! This is my first page submission (at first I thought I would try a concept I thought was interesting that didn't have a page and then I was like nope, that's too hard to start out with, let me do a random company those seems simpler). My first draft I used the company's press releases as a source (dumb, should have read more guidelines, definitely wrong sources). This time I tried focusing on what I could find about the company via Google News. Totally get that if it sounds like an advertisement, it's a problem, I guess I'm just wondering which bits are advertise-y?? Is it the sponsorship section (I added that because I noticed other company pages had it, but maybe that's wrong?) Should I just try to make a new page with something else? Maybe this company isn't ready for a Wiki page yet?

Thanks for any guidance you can provide!!!! I really appreciate it. Back to reading your resources I go (there are so many, Wiki is so complex!!!!)

MagneticMomentMuon (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MagneticMomentMuon Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", we have articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. Your draft does a good job of summarizing the business activities of the company- that's not what we are looking for, though. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities like the raising of capital or commencement of operations, and the like do not establish notability. We are looking for coverage that goes beyond the mere reporting of activities and discusses why the company is important or significant. If no such sources exist, the company likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help!!! I definitely was struggling with that distinction. Think I'll shelve this for now, and try something else. MagneticMomentMuon (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:51, 19 August 2022 review of submission by SJYTMAIN

My article has not even been reviewed. I am not being disruptive. I have submitted the article for review and you aree refusing to review it for no apparent reason. Please review the article and tell me what to improve on so it can be ready for the encyclopedia. It is free of advertisement, includes proper citations, and structured appropriately. What is the issue? SJYTMAIN (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reviewed and rejected, it won't be considered again sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SJYTMAIN my advice would be to drop this, and move on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:27:58, 19 August 2022 review of submission by As2302575


This is a very famous celebrity and all the information written about him is completely backed the references. I want a re-reveiw of this article please

As2302575 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your only references are to other youtube links. You need actual, verifiable reliable sources. ValarianB (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence to suggest that the subject of this article is notable. --Kinu t/c 18:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:06:02, 19 August 2022 review of submission by Ian503


With all due respect, I believe the subject matter definitely meets the notability and sourcing requirements. From the links that you sent it says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." I have provided 3 sources: the first two from regional, respected newspapers that feature articles solely about FOOD For Lane County. The last source I included because this page keeps getting rejected for lack of notability. It is an article from the "The Oregonian"--a statewide newspaper. Although FOOD For Lane County is not mentioned in the title, it is about an event sponsored completely by the organization and has much more than a passing reference to this food bank. All 3 sources are secondary sources, undeniably independent of FOOD For Lane County.

I am a little frustrated that I keep getting the same cookie-cutter rejection response about notability. I based this article on one about the Oregon Food Bank that was written by User:Another Believer. I know they are a very respected contributor to the Wikiproject Oregon as well as Wikipedia as a whole. They created this article https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Oregon_Food_Bank&oldid=855615015. It had one source from The Oregonian. I cannot see how that article meets the notability requirements, but one about a similar organization with similar sources (as well as additional regional sources) does not.

I therefore ask you to please reconsider your decision about this article submission

Ian503 (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft consisted of a single sentence with no indication of why the topic was notable. It was rejected which means it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian503 An article must do more that tell that the topic exists. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about it. Announcements of routine activities- like a food bank raising funds or a sports team working to help the charity- do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:31, 19 August 2022 review of submission by PeppyFi3lds


PeppyFi3lds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, writing to see why my article submitted to be published was declined. PeppyFi3lds (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PeppyFi3lds The reason was given at the top of the draft by the reviewer. Do you have a question about it? 331dot (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PeppyF13lds: We don't accept promotional writing, and the sourcing here is woefully insufficient. What sources you do have are not formatted properly and lack critical bibliographical information (page numbers). Finally, I doubt you have the rights to upload any of the images on that page to Commons or under that specific copyright licence, in which case we can't use them on the draft and Commons cannot have them full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:41:47, 19 August 2022 review of submission by GoodPhone2020


I was previously declined but I changed the unencyclopedic website into a another website. GoodPhone2020 (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodPhone2020 you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 20

03:41:59, 20 August 2022 review of submission by Marvel 19


Marvel 19 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marvel 19 you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:07:17, 20 August 2022 review of submission by 39.60.120.173


39.60.120.173 (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:24:43, 20 August 2022 review of submission by Tumusiime Joas


i need a review so that the article is safe and i can be encouraged to write more articles Tumusiime Joas (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tumusiime Joas The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about the existence of a business and what it does- it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tumusiime Joas the draft has been reviewed, and rejected, meaning it won't be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:35:27, 20 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Sunnyday87


I recently submitted my first article and it got declined because it wasn’t written in a encyclopedic format


Sunnyday87 (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Sunnyday87 -- I've removed a large portion of the draft because it was copied directly from other websites. Please see Wikipedia's policies on copyright (essentially, don't copy from other websites). Many of the references are promotional and don't demonstrate notability. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 01:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunnyday87 You are correct, it was declined for the reason you state. Do you have a question? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:59:51, 20 August 2022 review of submission by Danieljacomi

Hello, i just want to tell more about the person in question and link his youtube channel, so could i get review Danieljacomi (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danieljacomi The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell the world about someone, it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. If you just want to tell the world about someone, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Danieljacomi Also, there is absolutely no context. "He was the one who introduced the Random Viewer Levels System" ... Introduced that system to what? "where 3 courses are selected at random per group" ... Courses of what? Groups of what? Are we in bitcoin, or virtual reality, or an FPS game, or Pokemon, or 3D chess, or an MMORPG, or DOTA, or what? The draft doesn't say. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

01:23:07, 21 August 2022 review of submission by DinoInNameOnly

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I appreciate people's patience.

I don't understand why this doesn't meet notability guidelines. The three WaPo articles (not counting his op-ed) are definitely reliable sources which are independent of the subject, so I guess the problem is that they don't constitute sufficiently significant coverage. I thought they did because they all make more than a trivial mention of Cao: one is a profile of him, one is an account of a political debate he participated in, and the abortion one mentions him 15 times.

Would adding more news articles from other sources establish notability? For example

DinoInNameOnly (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DinoInNameOnly: politicians are usually assumed to be notable if they hold office in a federal or state/provincial government; since this person has not been elected, they will need to meet the general notability guideline instead. The first Washington Post article in the draft is good, but the 2nd, 4th, and 5th references are not independent/significant coverage. Out of the articles you listed here, the AP one is decent (though not super long), the National Review is an interview, and the CNN one only mentions them.
Waiting until the election is over in November is probably the easiest course of action. If they are elected, they will then meet the political notability guideline. Until then, they will need to meet the GNG, so more significant coverage is needed. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DinoInNameOnly, I agree with Ingenuity's assessment. Even though the first Washington Post reference is pretty good, it is based at least in part on an interview, and the congressional district is adjacent to Washington, DC. So, it is essentially local coverage. I would be more impressed if the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune had published a similar article. He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate, and the coverage of him is as an unelected candidate. If he wins in November, he instantly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @Ingenuity and @Cullen328. I will resubmit the draft if he wins or if he gets more significant coverage. DinoInNameOnly (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with rejection assesment.

User:NeverTry4Me rejected the draft, Draft:List of islands of Mauritania, with the reason, that the article's topic is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I disagree: lists of islands of countries are commonplace on wiki. If the list fails WP:LISTN or is poorly sourced, declination, not rejection is the suitable remedy. I don't know how to configure AFCH templates to undo a rejection, which is why I'm posting here. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the draft was later deleted under violation of a ban. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:57, 21 August 2022 review of submission by Filmforme

I would like to request a re-review of this draft because it has been substantially edited and commented on. I feel a lot of new information is being overlooked due to old comments. Besides being marked early as a promising draft with distribution by Indie Rights,[1] Richard Propes and Don Shanahan are both Tomatometer-approved critics at Rotten Tomatoes.[2] They have left full-length reviews on this film and this should qualify the draft being moved to article space as per WP:NFO attribute number 1 "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." --Filmforme (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Playground". Indie Rights.
  2. ^ "The Playground Reviews".
The reviewer was aware of the two reviews and still rejected it. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s why I’m here. I’m not so sure they know, so I am here to make a case why it should be reconsidered. The rejection could be based on the number of declines it previously had, as they didn’t mention the reviews. While the reviews were previously cited, only one was listed on Rotten Tomatoes until last month. Now that two of them are, I would like to know why this doesn’t matter or if the attribute I mentioned makes a case for it. — Filmforme (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:09, 21 August 2022 review of draft by 38.19.173.54


Hi, how do I cite a newspaper article from a newspaper that does not exist anymore but which has been cataloged online at New York State historic newspapers?

I thought it would be: "Arcara Taps First Assistant". Buffalo Courier Express. 14 March 1981. Retrieved 2022-07-04. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help) 38.19.173.54 (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would omit the |url= parametre. We do not require sources to be accessible online. That said, we also need the byline (last, first) and the pages the article's on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:25, 21 August 2022 review of draft by Thmspausch


My draft of an article about the living person "John Neoptolemos" was rejected three times 01-06/2022 and reviews might not have noticed edits/ comments conducted in between:

1 - Particularly, the article is fully packed with serious references but is still marked as "not adequately supported by reliable sources". The majority of references are scientific publications, because these are reliable proof of the article's subject's actions who is a scientist. There are no more or better online references to be found. From my point of view the article comprises more accurate and more reliable references than the majority of comparable articles. 2 - The draft is still marked with the annotation "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". I added the COI statement to the article's talk page on March 11th, 2022 "no UPE editing, no professional nor personal dependencies between contributor and article's subject". 3 - Additionally, the annotation still states "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view" after several revisions to achieve neutral point of view.

Please help me with these 3 issues to either refine referencing and wording or conduct content cutbacks. Thank you very much!!!


Thmspausch (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thmspausch: A few comments. The article was not rejected. That means something different on Wikipedia. A rejection is permanent. It was declined, but still has potential to be accepted. I haven't dug deeply into the sources, but in general, I agree with the feedback given by others. When you put in lots of papers and other sources, it makes it harder for the reviewers to review. You usually don't need more than one source for each sentence. And you shouldn't use the subject's own papers to source something. Yes - it shows the person wrote about something, but doesn't make the work notable. Showing how often something is cited is more what you want. And I'm not sure why there are numerous papers listed as sources that don't have his name as an author. Cites #36, 37, 39, 40, etc. It only makes the review harder. And I'd list only the most notable papers and publications, based on cite count. If I were you, I'd save the text, and then remove 90% of the works, and see if you can start this with no more than 20 sources, and only the best ones. Try to include things written about him as much as things he wrote himself. You can always add more, but you want this to be approved first. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thmspausch: the not adequately supported by reliable sources message can also mean, as is the case here, that although you have 100+ (!) cites, there is information which remains unreferenced, such as the educational and personal details (eg. DOB). You don't get a free ride after you've added a large number of sources — even then, every material statement as well as anything of private or contentious nature must be supported by direct inline citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advices and instructions! I'll try to follow them and resubmit. Thmspausch (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thmspausch As mentioned in a decline note, "There needs to be independent sources, like news articles on the subject, not just their work". In case this is not clear, most references should be material about the subject, not writings by the subject. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advices.
The point is that most of the actions of the subject are (sometimes indirectly) testified by scientific publications, i.e. referencing of an expert guideline shows the affiliation of the subject at a certain timepoint rather than showing of with the scientific impact. And from my point of view this is more reliable and more independent than the subject's name in a newpaper article. And unfortunately the subject's worklife is older than the internet, thus there are only few reports about in everyday's online press releases. I have searched a lot! If these points don't convince in terms of reliability and independence, I will do a lot of cutbacks, until the trunc of the article covered by a few news articles is legt. Thmspausch (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thmspausch Well, to be honest, you can have that view, but it's not what gets an article into Wikipedia. WP needs in-depth coverage of the person, written by other people, not just their name in a newspaper article. Sources that predate the Internet are fine; you can cite published books, magazine articles, etc. even if they are not online -- just use the appropriate citation template. Good luck. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your advices. I will do what is needed and get the article appropriate. Thanks! Thmspausch (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

04:38:46, 22 August 2022 review of submission by RenRen070193


RenRen070193 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @RenRen070193? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RenRen070193: Take the advice given by the reviewer and start a discussion on Template talk:Philippine name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:47:13, 22 August 2022 review of submission by MercifulEmma


More citations and references have been included. I request a re-review.-->}} MercifulEmma (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MercifulEmma The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does, or to just document the existence of a company. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The last reviewer could not find any such sources, which is why they rejected the draft. If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be declared, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is explicit and would help me in subsequent submisssions.
Thank you. MercifulEmma (talk) 11:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just for the record, no new sources or citations have been added since the rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:09, 22 August 2022 review of submission by Mimicverse


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

I wrote another article and I request you to accept this article. Thank you Mimicverse (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mimicverse: this is not an appropriate topic for an article, which is why it has been rejected and won't be considered further. You're welcome to post such content on any number of social media, blogging, etc., sites, but not here on Wikipedia. If you wish to try your hand at creating actual encyclopaedia articles, please see WP:YFA for advice. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mimicverse: in addition to what DoubleGrazing said, you can't copy text from other websites and paste it into Wikipedia (even with the kind of minimal changes you did). More info here. --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:13, 22 August 2022 review of submission by MercifulEmma

Having read a bit on stubs, I think this content is better as a stub rather than an article. Kindly suggest, please. MercifulEmma (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MercifulEmma: your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. All stubs are articles, and still must demonstrate notability. As the previous reviewers for your draft have noted, it needs to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies (which it does not). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MercifulEmma To pass this process, more than a stub is needed. If you attempted to create a stub in mainspace about this topic, it almost certainly would be proposed for deletion. Even stubs must demonstrate notability. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. I'm afraid you're going to need to step back from this for awhile. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:16, 22 August 2022 review of submission by Gaurav Chaudhary - Meerut

Hi, I've given the right information. Still, I don't know why this draft page has not been published successfully. Gaurav Chaudhary - Meerut (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaurav Chaudhary - Meerut: It appears that you are writing an autobiography about yourself. The draft is also very promotional. The only reference you provided is a Youtube video which does not demonstrate notability. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaurav Chaudhary - Meerut see YFA, REFB, and GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 23

Draft:American Ringtail

can you make it a page? 174.27.3.169 (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wait for a reviewer to check the article for consideration into Wikipedia. The current wait is 4+ months, but it could be much sooner, or even later, depending on reviewer interest or random chance. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:17:11, 23 August 2022 review of submission by Purplemontart

Hi, While I've made a few edits and things, I'm still new to actually creating articles, and hadn't realised that AfC was an optional process and that autoconfirmed users can move articles from drafts. Is there a way to remove the submitted draft from the AfC process, so I can move it to mainspace, or is it best to just wait for a review?

Purplemontart (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Purplemontart: I would argue that it is best to wait for a review. Assuming your draft passes the review and is accepted for publication, its chances of 'surviving in the wild' are much greater. You can of course just remove the AfC tags and release it, but if it's not yet ready, the new page patrol or anyone else who come across it may nominate it for deletion or just send it back to drafts. Your call. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing: Not a problem, I may as well wait, it's my first submitted article after all. Thanks for the info. Purplemontart (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:51:47, 23 August 2022 review of submission by Newspersonnow



hi there, i need help as im trying to add a public figure and writer to wikipedia, but i dont think im doing correctly. can you help pls?

Newspersonnow (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1106127069"