Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


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]
ok I'll provide more reference of news channels from our national media.
Jun 27, 2021
https://hindi.oneindia.com/news/meerut/gaurav-chaudhary-meerut-story-of-germany-returns-man-who-wins-district-panchayat-president-election-625695.html
Jun 28, 2021
https://tv9hindi.com/state/uttar-pradesh/germany-return-gaurav-chaudhari-will-be-jila-panchayat-president-in-meerut-inspired-to-pm-modi-713871.html
APRIL 16, 2021
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/entrepreneur-returns-from-germany-to-contest-panchayat-polls-in-up/articleshow/82089707.cms
26 june 2021
https://www.abplive.com/states/up-uk/meerut-bjp-s-gaurav-choudhary-set-to-be-the-district-panchayat-president-ann-1932435
27 june 2021
https://www.amarujala.com/uttar-pradesh/meerut/meerut-district-panchayat-president-election-bjp-candidate-gaurav-chaudhary-wins-election?pageId=1
plz check Gaurav Chaudhary - Meerut (talk) 15:51, 24 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]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Talk to Coco (presumably this is what you mean?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Newspersonnow: this draft is just promo blurb, and the two websites listed (not cited) do nothing to establish notability; I'm surprised this wasn't speedily deleted on sight.
If you want to try again, see WP:YFA for advice, and ensure that the sources cited clearly demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:55, 23 August 2022 review of draft by Clef le Tete


I am requesting advice on why an entry I submitted on the Number 1 bestselling author, playwright, TV historian and BBC TV scriptwriter Damian Corless has been rejected on grounds of a lack of "notability". It seems odd. It would be gratefully appreciated if you can help with specific suggestions. Thanks, Clef.

Clef le Tete (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Clef le Tete: the first thing to say is, this review was carried out by a user who wasn't an approved AfC reviewer, and is now blocked. You can resubmit the draft and get a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will, however, also say that being "the Number 1 bestselling author" etc. doesn't in and of itself make anyone notable in Wikipedia terms. That may make this person 'important' or 'famous' etc., but that isn't what we're looking for. What we need to see is coverage of the person/subject in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG.
And on that point, I must mention that the way the references are provided makes it virtually impossible for anyone to verify most of them. Please see WP:REFB for advice on how to reference, using inline citations and footnote sources correctly. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back so quickly DoubleGrazing. Very much appreciated. A problem with verifying many sources is that Damian began his writing career 40 years ago and lots of pertinent sources are in print in places like the Ireland's National Library but not online. Thanks again. I will check out Wikipedia's referencing advice page and resubmit the draft. Clef le Tete (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be online, as long as they otherwise meet the relevant criteria. But when citing offline sources, you have to provide full information, incl. publication details, page and volume numbers, etc., so that the sources can be verified. This is where the current references fall short. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:34, 23 August 2022 review of draft by Qabilab.bureha


Review this Draft : Yash Kumar Talan

Qabilab.bureha (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qabilab.bureha this draft is in the process of being speedily deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:03, 23 August 2022 review of draft by Selma232


Hi I am new to editing and I loved this play thats why I thought to add it to Wikipedia as good reviews online.

Selma232 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:13, 23 August 2022 review of draft by Samsam464

@Samsam464: Why are you submitting a blank sandbox? (I've also taken the liberty of removing an unclosed template you left out in this request.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:13, 23 August 2022 review of submission by Samsam464


I want to fix the problems of this page, which is about the personal biography of the athlete and hero in my country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsam464 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samsam464, unfortunately, Wikipedia and Wikidata aren't allowed in Wikipedia articles as sources because that would be circular referencing. I would recommend you add more reliable sources to the draft to get it accepted. Thanks! Weeklyd3 (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it. Weeklyd3 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside what Weeklyd3 has said above, Mandy.com is not an acceptable source (and the link proffered redirects to a login page) and https://www.fis-ski.com/DB/general/athlete-biography.html?sectorcode=AL&competitorid=https%3A//www.fis-ski.com/DB/general/athlete-biography.html%3Fsector%3DAL%26competitorid%3D28774%26type%3Dresult is useless for notability (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


August 24

00:55:28, 24 August 2022 review of draft by ChristianClarina


Hi, I’m requesting help as ChristianClarina. My first and only Wikipedia article keeps getting rejected because it lacks reliable sources. I don’t understand this, as I have referenced two books, (a) b Humphries, Mark Osborne A Weary Road: Shell Shock in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1918. University of Toronto Press, and (b) Price, G. Ward, The Story of the Salonica Army (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1918, 2nd Edition). There are three references to the London Times (including the detailed obituary for Erin Massey). There are three other newspaper references, (Newcastle Courant, 1st. August 1884 (Gale database), Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 13 July 1906 and the Western Times, 13 July 1906). There is also a reference to The National Archive of the UK; Kew, Surrey, England; War Office and Air Ministry: Service Medal and Award Rolls, First World War. WO329; Ref: 2323 and http://www.abitofhistory.net/html/rhw/c.htm I would really appreciate an explanation as to why these are considered not to be reliable sources.

ChristianClarina (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianClarina: Page numbers are hard-required for print citations; none of the sources you proffer has them. The extensive quotes also need to be removed; you do not need to quote a source to cite it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianClarina you say "keeps getting rejected", but I can only see one decline, back in April (and no rejections, which is different and more terminal outcome). What am I missing? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing. I've actually made several submissions over the last couple of years. ChristianClarina (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianClarina Were those submissions under a different username perhaps? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:08:33, 24 August 2022 review of submission by WikiSoundtrack

Hello,

I was wondering how I can make my article better so it can be published. WikiSoundtrack (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pavlos Kyriakou -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSoundtrack: you need to provide context and content to help the reader understand more about this person, and specifically why they are noteworthy enough to have been included in a global encyclopaedia. You also need to show they're notable, meaning that they've been covered in multiple reliable and independent publications; see WP:GNG. None of that is currently the case. (And please note, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, and Google search results is no source at all.) See WP:YFA for advice on how to create an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:52:26, 24 August 2022 review of submission by LowLevel73

Hello! The draft for the upcoming video game "Return to Monkey Island" was submitted for review several times four months ago and (correctly) rejected for WP:TOOSOON. Due to the repeated inappropriate submissions, it also received a warning.

I'm a new submitter who has completely rewritten the draft before resubmitting and I'm waiting patiently for it being reviewed. Still, I'm curious about AfC processes and I wanted to ask whether previous rejections and warnings might somehow slow down the reviewing of the new draft.

Cheers! 

► LowLevel (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking only as a editor from the VG wikiproject, the article at the state that it was in by the 2nd or 3rd review would have been a place that we at the Wikiproject would have readily created the article in mainspace as its initial announcement and preliminary development information (atop being a game in a notable series) would have been sufficient. Now this editor has greatly expanded the article with more development information and we have a release date less than a month away so this is clearly ready to go. However, I didn't want to promote it out of the AFC process cycle. --Masem (t) 11:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:LowLevel73 - I will answer one question. The previous rejection is (or at least should be) a block to further review. An editor should not resubmit a draft that has been rejected, at least not without discussing the reasons for the rejection; reviewers may nominate an article that was rejected and is resubmitted anyway for deletion. The AFC reviewers are not consistent in the use of rejection or in how rejected and resubmitted drafts are dealt with. In your case, you have tried, by coming here, to discuss the reasons for the rejection. I have not reviewed the draft in detail but will respond. I think that I disagree with the original rejection. It appears to have been rejected because the submitter was resubmitting it too persistently after being declined. I don't think that a rejection was necessary at that point. So, because you have tried to discuss the rejection, and because I am not sure whether it should have been rejected, I have removed the rejection. Your draft is now in a state of having been declined and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the answer, @Robert McClenon, I understand the process better, now.
    If I may provide a suggestion to hopefully improve the process: the fact that a large submission button stays in the draft page even after a draft is rejected might mislead other editors like me, who might not be aware that the draft shouldn't be resubmitted before discussing its rejection here. Maybe a simple way to reduce other undesired submissions could be to explicitly mention this requirement in the rejection banner?
    Thank also for removing the rejection! ► LowLevel (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:LowLevel73 - I and a few other editors have been saying for some time that the rules, or lack of rules, about rejection are poorly stated and confusing. I am not optimistic about any clarifications about rejection of drafts, at least not in the 2020s. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:40, 24 August 2022 review of submission by IamNasirZaman


hello wikipedia team you know i'm an international model And I have given you many of my news source reference links And you have also approved my Wikipedia page But now the speedy deletion notification is coming on it, it should be removed as soon as possible . i am very thankful to you but this issue  be finished as soon as possible If you want any other about me news link reference link go source gender then I can provide you But you should not delete this page

IamNasirZaman (talk) 06:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNasirZaman: there's no speedy request on this draft, you must be thinking of the other draft which was deleted three times. In any case, if there were a speedy request on it, and you wanted to contest it, this wouldn't be the place to do that as that's not an AfC matter.
And neither is your current draft, strictly speaking, an AfC matter any more, as it has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello wikipedia team you know i'm an international model And I have given you many of my news source reference links And you have also approved my Wikipedia page But now the speedy deletion notification is coming on it, it should be removed as soon as possible . i am very thankful to you but this issue be finished as soon as possible If you want any other about me news link reference link go source gender then I can provide you But you should not delete this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamNasirZaman (talk • contribs) 06:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNasirZaman: We do not care about what other articles from you have made it to mainspace. We judge each draft on its merits. And congratulations, your whining has won you a critique from the Bastard Helper From Hell.
So your sources are essentially a bust. Let's look at your article text - and I have words for the Award section.
  • Imi was [born] into a Punjabi Muslim family in Lahore Pakistan[...] - Source? (Get used to that word and that link; it is going to be a fucking running theme.)
  • He hails from the Data Ganj Baksh in Lahore[...] - Source?
  • [...He] went to London when he was 18 to get a diploma in administrative management. - Source?
  • On Friday, he told Samaa TV that he was scouted by a modeling agency at 18 hasn't looked back ever since. I never thought I'd be among the big names in international fashion industry, but it all worked out on its own said Subhani. - There is a lot to unpack here:
    • We do not use relative periods of time like "Friday". You need to provide a specific date (In this case, Aug. 21, 2020 per the date on the relevant source).
    • Direct quotes must always be identified as such with quotation marks and attributed. There is no leeway here.
    • This entire paragraph - and most of the one preceding it - is plagiarised from the SAMAA source, and should be removed from the article on that basis alone. Material that has been copy-pasted from elsewhere is, and MUST, be removed upon discovery.
  • [...]Imi is a best known for his modeling work with renowned Pakistani fashion labels[...] - Source?
  • [...Imi] also mark his Television debut in 2013.[sic] - Source? What is cited there is not fit for purpose.
  • Imi won lux style award is the big achievers... - This entire sentence borders on word salad. Turns out there's a reason for this - most of it has been plagiarised from the Thenews.com.pk source.
  • 17th Lux Style Awards Best Model Male of the year - won - Source? I note our own article on the awards does not list him as winning the award, only being a nominee.
  • 19th Lux Style Award Best Model Of the year - won - I am going to be as blunt as a fucking atom bomb here: THE SOURCE DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL. Users have been indefinitely blocked for deliberately misrepresenting sources, and I cannot see this as anything but a wilful and deliberate misrepresentation since it's pretty obvious from even the most cursory of skims of the source that there is no generic "Model of the Year" category (it's gender-divided) and that even in the Male Model of the Year category he did not win it.
  • 20th Lux Style Awards Best Model Male Of the year - won - THE SOURCE DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL. In fact, the source explicitly states that the lists on it are merely the nominees for the 19th Lux Style awards, and predates the ceremony for those. This is something that would have been noticed with a quick skim of the source.
  • Hum Style Awards Best Model Male - won - THE SOURCES DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL. Once again, Imi is a nominee, with someone else winning in his category.
If I were you, I would start coming up with a very good reason why you shouldn't be sanctioned for blatant misrepresentation of sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:11, 24 August 2022 review of submission by Kalan.Bond

I believe there is nothing wrong with my article and if you look at a similar Article by Yach Bol we have similar layouts and if their is anything I am doing wrong please let me know. Kalan.Bond (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalan.Bond: the reviewers have, one after another, pointed out what is wrong — have you actually read any of the messages? If you just keep resubmitting the draft without addressing any of the reasons for declining, inevitably it will get rejected in the end. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:27, 24 August 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gareth Beyers


I am helping the company I work for publish a Wikipedia page. This is a new metaverse project that is leading the way in Africa.

We have several publications across pages like Forbes, Mail and Guardian, and a local News site.

I had some trouble with the basic format of referencing and interlinking.

Is there someone who can look at my draft and explain what the minimum requirements would be for us to get something published?

Thank you for reading my message. I hope someone can help me. All the best,


Gareth Beyers (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Beyers Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Most of your sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, which does not establish notability. To merit an article, the company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to wrote about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Please tell us your three best independent sources.
Thanks for making the proper disclosure- something many fail to do- but to be frank it is going to be very difficult for you to succeed. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, even more so with a conflict of interest. Also be aware that there are good reasons for your company to not want an article. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Thank you for clarifying that. I have a large list of various publications. Our article is not promoting our company nearly stating what it is we do. Referencing a few other similar organizations that have published articles have similar structured articles with similar citings. Decentraland The Sandbox Axie infinity

Any help is appreciated.


@Gareth Beyers: word of advice, don't try to copy other articles (unless they are expressly rated as Good Articles), as they may have issues which you won't want to replicate in your draft. Make sure you follow the relevant guidelines instead. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing They were accepted so to me means they pass the basic requirements and should be a indicator of what is allowed. Gareth Beyers (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Beyers That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were accepted by anyone. The AFC process is only required of new accounts, IP users, and those with a conflict of interest. It is not required of all users, and it has not always existed. There are any numerous ways to get inappropriate articles past us. We can only deal with what we know about. As DoubleGrazing states, if you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles. Those have been thoroughly edited and vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, when you say "Our article is not promoting our company nearly stating what it is we do", that's the definition of promotion. You do not have to be soliciting customers or selling something. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you @331dot. Thanks for that link. Would I need to redraft the article for re-submission? Gareth Beyers (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:13, 24 August 2022 review of submission by Go.patriots01


I am still adding information and new articles and achievements.

Go.patriots01 (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Go.patriots01 but this draft has been rejected (twice) and won't be considered again. Please understand that Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform where you can publish anything and everything. If your friend one day becomes so good and famous at something that the media are reporting on their achievements, then you may be able to summarise those reports into an article on them; until that happens, you need to drop this. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:04, 24 August 2022 review of draft by Glasgow87


I have had feedback (21/08/22) from my draft submission for 'sustainable healthcare' stating that it breaches copyright. This was not intended and I would like to correct the relevant areas and re-submit. I would like to know which bits are a breach of copyright - can you be more specific to help me make more focused changes and to prevent the article being bounced back multiple times? I have put in some direct quotes but always put a reference point in after these - is this allowed? If you could give me more specific direction I would really appreciate it. Thank you

Glasgow87 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Glasgow87: I can only find one passage which looks like a copyvio, namely the first para of the section 'Environmental issues in sustainable healthcare'. Other than that, you may need to ask the reviewer directly.
And yes, short quotations are allowed, but they must be clearly marked as such; just citing the source isn't enough. See MOS:QUOTE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


August 25

00:24:57, 25 August 2022 review of draft by GreyElfGT

When I first created/published the James Almanzar page, I only put what I could confirm at the time, starting with the L.A. Times Obituary, meaning to find citations for all his other works in Film & TV as I found them. But it got put Directly into Draft ONLY THREE MINUTES After Initial Creation!! I was SOOOO Frustrated at that... it's Hardly enough time to make the improvements that Intended to do, immediately thereafter !!!

See version history Time Stamps:

  • 10:25, 20 July 2022‎ GreyElfGT talk contribs‎ 1,156 bytes +1,156‎ Created a page...
  • 10:28, 20 July 2022‎ Hughesdarren (talk · contribs) m 1,284 bytes 0‎ Hughesdarren moved page "James Almanzar" to Draft...

I've since supplied a Second RS Citation for his Bio info (places of birth, parents, etc.) from an RS 1967 New Mexico Magazine issue, and expanded his Filmography to include most of his work (which I could confirm myself) other than just the Gunsmoke episodes (which was originally my ONLY reason for bothering at all... so I could link to his Roles in the List of Gunsmoke Episodes page). I also included RS Citations for each and every Film/Show... as well as I could... plus some other improvements as well.

I think you'll agree now, it has more than adequate coverage & notability.

I'd like to get to the business of linking in the existing Wiki Pages for Shows & Films to his page, but can't while its still in Draft... can you please Re-Review it so we can get it moved out of Draft? It's already been more than a month.

If it needs anything else, let me know on my Talk page. Thank You GreyElfGT (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GreyElfGT: You actually do not need to find sources for his body of work - only those where he went uncredited or took an unfamiliar pseudonym. (This also applies to his books as well.) That being said, anything he or his surrogates had a direct hand in creating is useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found RS Citations so I don't add errant things to the article like "Louie Lamour's, 'The Sacketts'" which there ARE sites out there that SEEM to be RS, but can't be, saying he's in it, but he's NOT... I've seen it... he is neither Credited (in the opening/closing credits), nor did I actually see him as an Uncredited/Pseudonym Extra... the point of RS Citations next to each work is to help guarantee we're not simply copying IMDb or some other NON-RS site. And what do you mean Surrogates? I'm not affiliated with the actor... his works (and the citations from News/Books) are what establish Notability. I simply want to do due diligence when I link to him from another article, such as Gunsmoke, or other film/tv articles that already have him in the cast list, but are not yet linked, that he WAS actually in that Film or Show. Make Sense?
At this point I'm more concerned about just getting it out of Draft... I've already done just about everything I know how, and can do, to help get it Approved for Main space... other than finding a PD/CC Image to use w/o worrying about copyrights... oh, and any Help on THAT would be very welcomed too, Thank You Very Much. GreyElfGT (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GreyElfGT "But it got put Directly into Draft ONLY THREE MINUTES After Initial Creation!! I was SOOOO Frustrated at that... it's Hardly enough time to make the improvements that Intended to do, immediately thereafter !!!" If the article wasn't ready for the main space, you shouldn't have published it. You need to work on it in the user or draft space until it's ready, or at least compliant with the various guidelines, and only then publish. And the fact that it was moved to drafts isn't a problem — the alternative could have been to have it deleted, so compared with that, draftification is very much the soft option. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, In a way I agree, and in a way I don't, but in any case I have learned my lesson... my article creations after Almanzar (the latest being for for Chanin Hale) came out mostly fully-formed so they would NOT go immediately into draft (or deletion) by another over-zealous reviewer... <sigh> can we get over the finger-wagging and just get it reviewed? Have a look... is it Good-2-Go or Not? Thanks GreyElfGT (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:36, 25 August 2022 review of draft by CharlesDarbyshire


I am writing and submitting my first article but cannot see how to add the wiki sidebar on the right hand side of the page. Can you please assist? Thank you

CharlesDarbyshire (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CharlesDarbyshire, do you mean the infobox, such as what's seen in the article on MS Estonia? You create that using a suitable infobox template, in this case Template:Infobox ship begin. That said, having an infobox (or not) has no bearing on your draft's chances of being accepted, so it's more a nice-to-have extra at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent, thank you so much CharlesDarbyshire (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1106572302"