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 Haran90 (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 3 November 2022 (→06:59:48, 3 November 2022 review of submission by Haran90). 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


October 28

07:07:47, 28 October 2022 review of submission by Agreatwriter206


Agreatwriter206 (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Agreatwriter206: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Agreatwriter206: We don't accept unsourced biographies of living people or social-networking content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: I requested the page be suppressed per WP:CHILDPROTECT.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:23, 28 October 2022 review of submission by SmartMajid


SmartMajid (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmartMajid: This article has no in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking; it's just a list of the shows it airs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:30, 28 October 2022 review of submission by Masoud Sepahiii


Masoud Sepahiii (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Sepahiii You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

15:00:24, 29 October 2022 review of submission by 43256ds


43256ds (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please again read my text.43256ds (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept word salad, especially as promotional-sounding as this is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:59, 29 October 2022 review of draft by RkOLOGUY


Hello - I received comments on the draft which I am addressing now. There were two: add more wiki links and more recent (post) 1996 citations. Once this is done -- what is the next step? Do I resubmit the piece for review? Do I move it to the main space or does someone else do that? Thank you for your help on this. RkOLOGUY

RkOLOGUY (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmit for review with a new {{subst:submit}} template. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:38:29, 29 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Debartolo2917


Hi, I recently had a draft for publication declined (Draft:Elijah Green). I severely disagree with this declination for a variety of reasons, namely the reasoning that the subject of the article, the baseball player Elijah Green, is not notable. He was drafted 5th overall in this years draft, with all one but other player in the first round having their standalone article created and published. It makes zero sense why Elijah Green would not also have an article, and likely would have had his name page not already been created and linked to a different article. Sometimes it feels like admins on Wikipedia lack common sense and simply follow rules blindly. I can go ahead and improve this page, but I don't see a need to wait for another four months to go through the review process when this topic has notability.

Debartolo2917 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Debartolo2917 Anyone may conduct reviews, not just admins- the vast majority of reviewers are not admins. Saying that reviewers- who may have more experience than you- lack common sense won't help get this in the encyclopedia faster. Being drafted is not a guarantee of notability, nor is the existence of other articles pertinent- some of them could be inappropriate as well. A player must still receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. You have some coverage of his college career, but none of his professional career other than to say he was drafted. That's probably the biggest holdup right now. 331dot (talk) 06:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Debartolo2917 once you have made improvements and resubmitted the draft, please make a note on the draft's talk page with WP:THREE. You can either come by here or to my talk page and request adding an AfC comment to direct the next reviewer to the talk page for THREE. That hopefully will help with a quicker review. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:27:32, 29 October 2022 review of submission by TexasEditor1

My submission was rejected because "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." I was told "Need in-depth coverage about him. Also, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability." I provided links to several independent articles in reliable, mainstream publications, including reviews and books. I also included several with mentions because they supported or substantiated the subject's affiliations with major artists, including authoring or co-authoring songs recorded by Cher, Joan Baez, Kiss' Gene Simmons, Hanson, etc. His band was the inspiration for Paul Schrader's Film "Light of Day," and he appears in the film (as well-documented); his band also wrote the song that was the movie's original title — "Born in the U.S.A.," which Bruce Springsteen lifted for his song — all of which is documented by independent sources. I also don't understand how interviews would not qualify — they show mainstream coverage of the subject, which I was told was important. Somewhere, there's a directive that says to include features by major publications. Features almost always include interviews with the subject; that's why they're written. As a journalist who's written hundreds, if not thousands, of feature stories, I'm shocked to hear that Wikipedia deems them unreliable as sources chronicling someone's work. Seemingly 90 percent of Wikipedia entries include feature stories as main references. When I searched for assistance with this draft, I was told by several reviewers that the subject clearly met the criteria for notability, despite elimination of sources such as IMDB — which Wikipedia has conflicting guidelines for inclusion (apparently, it's allowed as an external link at the bottom of an entry, but not as a reference. Which is quite confusing.) I was also told that, if anything, I'd over-referenced, so I removed many lesser items. I read Wikipedia entries for musical artists constantly, and can point to many who have few viable sources, references or major achievements, yet they're somehow approved. I saw one for which the lone reference was a photo; others use artist-generated bios. I took care to search for and include legitimate, verifiable sources and create permanent, archival links so they would always be verifiable. I 'm quite shocked that my meticulous work has been rejected when I see daily examples of far more questionable entries. Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belle_Sounds#cite_note-2 The first several reference links don't even exist. I actually edited this page at one point to improve its readability and clarify some references. Still, I believe the subject carries less notability than the subject you're turning down. Also, artist Buzzy Linhart, linked to in this draft, has career credits of similar weight; why would he be approved, yet my subject is not? In any case, I think a thorough review of the attached references, including this artist's extensive All Music Guide credits and testimonies regarding his work by Joan Baez, Maia Sharp and others, should stand as credible support for the notability of his work — especially if taken as a whole. I hate to have to rely on comparisons to make a case for his legitimacy, but I can find links to several less worthy subjects who already have pages if I must. I would also request specific examples of features and articles that don't merit inclusion as sources, with further explanation of why they don't measure up. TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


TexasEditor1 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TexasEditor1 the draft was declined rather than rejected. Decline allows for resubmission while a rejection does not. There is also a distinction with the use of sources. One is verifiability (does the source support the claim) and notability, (does the source provide in-depth independent coverage about the subject). Both, of course, have to meet the reliable source| criteria. Going by memory, I think the Austin Chronicle article likely meets in-depth coverage. While portions of it were an interview, there was enough independent coverage. As for interviews in of themselves, from a Wikipedia standpoint, what a subject says/written about itself is not useful. What matters for notability is what others have written about a subject. Also, I believe were some sources that did not mention Addison so those are not useful (again, going by memory).
As for other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Overtime Wikipedia's standards have generally become more strict so an article that was acceptable a decade ago is not acceptable today. There are over 6 million existing articles and even today some get by when they should not.
You welcome to resubmit the draft to get another opinion. If you do, I strongly recommend posting a note on the draft's talk page listing the three sources that meet notability standards to help the next reviewer but be concise. See WP:THREE and WP:42 for guidance. S0091 (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 30

00:22:19, 30 October 2022 review of draft by Stamlou


Please move this draft to my user space. Thank you. Stamlou (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, moved to User:Stamlou/Marie Suize. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:24:12, 30 October 2022 review of draft by Cbazerman


I submitted this comment in response to the reviewer Jamiebuba who rejected this article on the grounds of notability.In drafting this article I focused very much on the headnote and in the publications section to give mch documented evidence of notability. I included all the documented evidence are from independent sources that are the most reliable evidence in the field, including multiple society awards, reprints and translations, and articles and special sections about her work in leading journals in the field. I am really at a loss to understand what is lacking.


I thank you for the quick review of the article on Carolyn Miller, but I am a bit puzzled about why you have rejected it on the grounds of notability. I had reviewed the notability criteria rather carefully, and I have included more than a few independent sources indicating her notability. Among them were her named chair, her multiple awards by the top professional societies in her field, including a lifetime achievement award. Beyond the independent cited comments in other articles that attested to the groundbreaking and foundational work of her articles were the multiple translations and reprints of her articles, and even more were the special sections devoted to discussing her article "Genre as Social Action" in two journals as well as an article analyzing the influence of her "Humanistic Rationale" article. These are far more than passing mentions. They are whole articles and sections of journals. In her field there is no more substantial site of discussion and recognition. Her "Genre as Social Action" is the most cited in the major journal it appears in and her ":Humanistic Rationale" is the most cited article in her field of technical communication, Three of her articles have been discussed as among essential works in her field. All these items and more have been documented in the Wikipedia submission. I am not sure what else you might be looking for. Methodical 01:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbazerman (talk • contribs)

Methodical 02:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Methodical 02:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Your book cites are all missing ISBNs/OCLC#s. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:50:44, 30 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by נתנאל שטרן


I need an help on Draft:NateNet for submission do you can to help me on this? נתנאל שטרן (talk) 10:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to announce your original research. Theroadislong (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:42, 30 October 2022 review of submission by נתנאל שטרן

whats to do@? נתנאל שטרן (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this afc has rejected נתנאל שטרן (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own projects. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I to promote/write this outsite wikipedia? נתנאל שטרן (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are over one billion websites in the world. We can only speak for the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@נתנאל שטרן Please see Wikipedia:OUTLET. David10244 (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:20, 30 October 2022 review of draft by Superuser2023


Everything I submitted in the page I created was hyperlinked to external sources. How were these not verifiable?

Superuser2023 (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia requires a specific citation style for any and all content concerning living or recently-departed people. The article as written is also promotional in tone. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Superuser2023: as Jéské says, you need to reference such articles with inline citations (WP:ILC). Instead, you now have inline external links, which not only aren't the same, they're not actually allowed (WP:EL). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:58, 30 October 2022 review of draft by Aramhayr


This article is about my scientific adviser. I wrote his short bio in 3 languages: armenian, english, and russian:

1. I would like very much to have them approved before his 100 birthday on Nov. 16. Per your recommendation I added tags, but I know that still there is no guarantee for quick turnaround. What else can I do to expedite English page approval? may I have a live (on-line) review with the approver? It is a very short bio and I tried to be as non sentimental, non emotional as possible - it's all facts.

2. [- this might be a question to a different audience -] I could not link the 3 articles through the Languages field. I entered the article language and name, but got a message like "the article is not available". Is this because of missing approval or wrong sequence of steps? These are the links: https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D4%B4%D5%A1%D5%BE%D5%AB%D5%A9_%D4%B3%D6%80%D5%B8%D5%A2%D5%B4%D5%A1%D5%B6, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%94%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87.

3. [- this might be a question to a different audience -] Is there a way for putting a reference in the reference: <ref></ref> into the <ref></ref> text. See Reference #6 in the Draft. I also could not find instructions - I remember seeing them - on how to crete multiple references. Could you please point me to the section in instructions.

Aramhayr (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aramhayr: In order:
  1. You cannot in its present condition. We have minimum citation standards for claims and articles concerning living/recently-departed people, and this article falls well short of such standards. You would need to either get sources for or strip out every single unsourced claim. You have a lot of unreferenced claims, including the entire Biography section. Something like this is an issue even if the subject isn't alive/recently-departed.
  2. Don't bother with the interwiki links on Wikidata until the draft is approved (assuming it is).
  3. Nested references are not a thing. You instead want to make the first a footnote (with something like {{efn}}) and then put the reference within the footnote; that will work as far as I am aware.
Hope this helps. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it is helpful. The biography section is based upon his handwritten (in Russian) autobiography. I might try to obtain sealed and signed version of it from the human resources of the institute (INEUM) he worked at. Will fotocopy (xerox) of it (or just handwriting) work. Some of facts are mentioned in the Encyclopedia of Electronic Computing Machines (in Russian: see photo of the first page in the Russian Wiki). Can his daughter's testimony be a reference? I got the data that is not in Encyclopedia or other references in the bio from her. -- Aramhayr (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing does not require posting copies of it. We accept offline sources, if cited properly (we'd need, for books: title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and ISBN/OCLC#). Unless his daughter's testimony has been formally published somewhere, we can't use it as a source (Can't verify something spoken by someone otherwise should they become incommunicado for some reason or another). That the sources are in Russian is irrelevant, even for the offline sources; we accept non-English sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again. I'll put citation of published sources and remove the facts that are not verifiable. What can be considered as verification for: "His daughter Galina Gutarina (born in 1952), grandson Alexander Gutarin (born in 1979) and great granddaughters Mia and Nina (born in 2019) live in Silicon Valley."? Could images of diplomas (PhD. etc.) or title pages of dissertations (they are considered as manuscripts) be considered as verifiable sources? -- Aramhayr (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aramhayr Descendants who are not notable themselves are generally not mentioned in an article. David10244 (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 31

01:17:53, 31 October 2022 review of submission by BappleBusiness

I've been making edits to this draft to prove notability and improve the reliability of the sources. I am a somewhat experienced editor, so I don't want to clog up the AfC, but the draft has been rejected four times before so I'm hesitant to move it to mainspace without feedback. Should I submit the draft through AfC, is there another process I should use, or should I boldly bring it into mainspace? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 01:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@bapplebusiness: the draft has been rejected, and you should therefore drop the draft and work on something else. you may not move it to mainspace, either. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 04:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@lettherebedarklight, you misunderstand me. Prior to my edits (as well as edits from other users), it was rejected. Should I still send it through the AfC process? ~BappleBusiness[talk] 05:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@bapplebusiness: yes. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 07:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFC process is voluntary(except for new/IP users and those with a COI); you aren't technically required to submit it unless you want to. "Rejection" does typically mean resubmission is not possible, unless there is new information that the reviewer did not have when they rejected it- in which case they should be asked to reconsider, or a community discussion should take place. BappleBusiness, unless you are 95-100% confident that the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion, I would recommend running it through the submission process. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @bapplebusiness just be aware this page has previously had quite a bit of disruption to the point where the title is currently protected against creation and moving. It also has had a deletion discussion take place on the topic. Ensure that you have met the concerns of the participants of the discussion, it was only 18 months ago. Things can change. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:14:39, 31 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Trevorstocall


Hi. A few months ago I submitted Matt White (paraclimber) for submission. Yesterday I had it declined due to a potential conflict of interest and I was wondering how to resolve it.

I have seen Matt White climb in national climbing competitions (in the UK) when attending with a friend. I’ve never actually met him and he doesn’t know who I am, so I’m not sure how to resolve the conflict (that I can’t see actually existing).

Is it just a case of putting the conflict tag in explaining what I’ve just told you?

Thanks in advance

Trevorstocall (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trevorstocall If you have no conflict of interest, simply tell that to the user that expressed concern. I'm not sure of the reason for the concern, but it might be related to the fact that your very first edit had a correctly formatted table and infobox, something unusual for a new user to get correct on the first try without additional motivation(like being paid). 331dot (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the fact that the photo was uploaded as 'own work' is a small red flag. It doesn't prove any relationship, of course, but it does at least suggest that possibility. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I’ve left a message on Onel’s Talk page explaining. Thanks for your help Trevorstocall (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trevorstocall You will need to address the image attribution issue. If you didn't take it, it may need to be removed and reuploaded with a proper license, if it is a compatible one. If you did take it, okay, but you would need to explain that seeming inconsistency with not knowing him. Note that images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text; I would suggest just removing it and dealing with the image later. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I was at the event (British National Paraclimbing Championship 2021) with a friend who was climbing (not Matt White). I took the photo…there were probably 100 other spectators there also.
Happy to remove the photo if easier Trevorstocall (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve removed the picture (for simplicity’s sake).
I’ve left a note on Onel’s page explaining. Is there anything else I need to do? Do I need to resubmit?
Thanks again for all your help with this Trevorstocall (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine to readd the photo later if you actually took it. Many times new users put "own work" for an image that they actually didn't take, either ignorantly or deliberately. You don't need to readd it for approval of the draft, though. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So do I just resubmit for approval again? Wait for Onel to reply and rep look at it?
If I have to wait for approval it could be another 3 months haha Trevorstocall (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:04, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Holdenjosh8


Im trying to get my article published about Harrows darts which is a darts manufacturer with some rich history, I also feel there isnt many of the Darts brands represented on Wikipedia.

My article got declined because of the references I had used.

Would you be able to assist me in being able to get this rectified or tell me what is wrong with the articles.

Thanks, Josh Holdenjosh8 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Holdenjosh8: the draft is almost entirely unreferenced, and there is no evidence that the company is notable. You need to show enough sources to meet the WP:GNG standard, and you need to cite those sources sufficiently to support all material claims made in the draft.
In addition, you have to remove all promotional and peacock language. And you cannot copy or closely paraphrase from your sources, like you seem to have done in parts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:47, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Kwadwo Lyrix


How do i fix UPE editing? Kwadwo Lyrix (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadwo Lyrix If you receive any form of compensation from, or have any paid relationship with the subject of your edits, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal disclosure, see WP:PAID. Note that "paid editing" is not limited to specific payments for edits. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:09, 31 October 2022 review of submission by VAkarsh20

This player is not the starting point guard for the Illinois Basketball team, and this team is ranked in the top 25 in the country and the defending Big 10 Regular Season champion. I personally believe he is a notable individual and would like to be reconsidered for submission on this article. Would love to have a dialogue on what else needs to be included to make this submission worthy of a published article. VAkarsh20 (talk) 15:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VAkarsh20 "This player is not the starting point guard"? What position does he play then? David10244 (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:33, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Matar Gaza


Flying Person (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do i need to make it better?

I have deleted Draft:Yalla_Parkour, Matar Gaza, because a substantial chunk of it was copied from this page within yallaparkour.com. There were two major problems with this. First, it was publicity material for the documentary. Wikipedia isn't a PR conduit; it's an encyclopedia. Publicity material isn't wanted. Secondly, the source didn't say that either that it was released under a copyleft license acceptable to Wikipedia or that the copyright holder waived all their rights to it; thus reproduction in Wikipedia violated copyright. Violation of copyright is taken very seriously here.
You need to realize that this is an encyclopedia, and that copyright must be respected.
(Additionally, your signature [[User:Matar Gaza|Flying Person]] is unnecessarily confusing.)
I didn't bother to examine the draft, because the copyright violation was enough to condemn it. But there may well be a problem of notability. Notability of a film may shoot up upon its release. -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:27, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Shunya1508


Shunya1508 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Hoary

Hello Hoary,Thank you for your support and your advise.

I followed the advice and read "How to improve a draft", added reliable references and removed uncertain statements and information from the person.

I also added English links whenever possible to make the reference easier for English speakers.

I think (3) or (4) is the reason why Bunta Inoue qualifies as a WP:ARTIST.

“In 2010, Bunta Inoue was awarded the 36th Hoso Bunka Foundation HBF Prize for art in recognition of his character design for the Japanese puppet television show The Three Musketeers”

I also thought the Yokosuka Museum of Art exhibit and the collaboration with hyde of L'Arc & Ciel were worth mentioning.

I would like to resubmit this manuscript for re-evaluation by you and other reviewers.

If you are able, it would be appreciated if you could review it and offer your advice.

Sincerely Shunya1508 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is certainly a lot better now, but it still has severe problems. Here's the opening paragraph:

Inoue Takaho (井上隆保)[1], better known by his alias Bunta Inoue (井上文太 Inoue Bunta), is a Japanese painter and visual artist. [2]

And here are its references:

  1. ^ Collaboration exhibition of Takayasu Inoue and Bunta Inoue, two people in one.(Not Translated)
  2. ^ Inoue also works under the name of "Takayasu Inoue", a contemporary painter who inherits pure Japanese art such as Choju-giga and Rin-ha.(Automatic translated)

But the first source isn't "Collaboration exhibition of Takayasu Inoue and Bunta Inoue, two people in one" (either with or without "(Not Translated)". It's 井上隆保さんと井上文太さん、1人で2人のコラボ展. It's about two names: one indisputably has the reading Inoue Bunta (which Wikipedia's MoS says we must render as "Bunta Inoue"), but the other is 井上隆保 (which should look familiar). And it's from Shibuya Keizai Shinbun, and dated 1 June 2005 -- information that should be provided.

As for the second source, I get the impression from the draft that "Inoue also works under the name of 'Takayasu Inoue', a contemporary painter who inherits pure Japanese art such as Choju-giga and Rin-ha" is the machine translation of a (very odd) title. But it isn't. Instead, it's a quotation from the machine translation, whose title, website, etc you don't provide. I can't find the Japanese-language original page; but when I mouse over the particular sentence, its Japanese original appears. "Takayasu Inoue" seems to be the machine guess of the reading of 井上隆保. "Choju-giga and Rin-ha" is a bungled machine attempt at "Chōjū-giga and Rinpa".

I thought I'd sort out the opening paragraph. I started, but I gave up. I'm not even sure of the man's names. When it's used by/for him, is 隆保 (A) always Takaho, (B) always Takayasu, or (C) either Takaho or Takayasu, depending on the circumstances/purpose?

Also, please don't depend on, or cite, machine translations. (If a web page is in Japanese, readers will always have the option of feeding it, or parts of it, to Google Translate or similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese (along with other East Asian languages) is also famously resistant to automated translation, particularly for longer strings of text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano
Thank you for the useful advice.
I should have understood that automatic translation of Japanese has many problems. I have corrected the relevant links. Thank you! Shunya1508 (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary
First of all, thank you for your advice. It was an easy mistake to rely on machine translation. I have corrected the relevant link.
I have also removed the artist's name "Takaho Inoue" as you pointed out.
If you happen to have a free moment, I'd be very grateful if you could give me your opinion.
Thanks Shunya1508 (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:20, 31 October 2022 review of submission by MASON FOREIGN

I’m trying to create a google knowledge panel to get verified on Instagram MASON FOREIGN (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MASON FOREIGN We have no interest in helping you enhance search results for you or in a "knowledge panel"(for which a Wikipedia article is only one possible input). Our only interest is in if you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:45:29, 31 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by RastaKins


I think I may be a victim of Wikipedia Backlog Drive haste. (Gotta get those barnstars!) The reviewer does not seem to be willing to understand my submission or to evaluate my rebuttal.

As this was my first scratch-written article, I decided to use maximum caution and submit it via AfC even though I am extendedconfirmed with 713 Wikipedia edits since 2006, and could have submitted directly to mainspace.

The article was originally rejected as having too few citations. I improved the citations and resumitted to AfC. Second reviewer stated reasons for the rejection of the article were: 1. WP is not a how-to manual. 2. needs more 3rd party independent references to establish notability.

Neither of these assertions are valid.

I wrote a rebuttal to the reviewer which was largely ignored. You can review the conversation here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nightenbelle/Archive_2#Request_on_17:19:36,_14_October_2022_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_RastaKins

I spent a week writing the article and months improving it. Do you think it is now ready for mainspace?

RastaKins (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RastaKins: You put a lot of time into this. I noticed in the edit history that the article was in mainspace, but was moved to draft space. I just went through the draft and have to agree that it's overly technical, and the sourcing isn't great. The problem with using primary sources such as manuals and brochures is while the info is factually accurate, there needs to be some indication of notability. The reader needs to understand why this subject is important enough for a Wikipedia article. That's why we like to include independent sources. The only source that I think helps is this review. If more of that kind of sourcing was included, the article would be improved. Another thing to consider is you have lines and lines of technical specs that are unsourced. Who is the audience for this? I find it's easier to write articles when everything is sourced, but Wikipedia doesn't want to be the encyclopedia of everything, but instead the encyclopedia of everything that is important. Why not instead focus on adding some of the most significant info to Western Digital#Other products? TechnoTalk (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk, thank you for the reply. There are a number of number of contemporaneous third party sources that indicate this microprocessor as notable: There is the referenced 1977 Dr. Dobbs's article about its development. The computer system built around the WD16 was so significant that the editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal, Jim Warren, wrote his own editorial comments in a column on page 7 saying he was "totally blown away by it." "It comes close to being an order of magnitude more potent than any other system [he has] seen." By the way, Jim Warren is notable enough to have a Wikipedia biography since 2006.
You mentioned the 1981 article that discusses that there were five thousand $10,000 to $15,000 computers built around this processor. That's roughly a $15 million/year industry. Another notable thing about the WD16 and the computer built around it: It spawned a user group (Alpha Micro Users Society) and a monthly newsletter that has been archived by the Computer History Museum which provides more third party references until December 1981. 38 of these newsletters are still available for download from bitsavers. The downloadable newsletters are for WD16-based systems only. The WD16 was a real microprocessor shipped in volume for at least four years.
"you have lines and lines of technical specs that are unsourced. Who is the audience for this?"
This is the WD16 Instruction Set Architecture (ISA). As I mentioned to a previous reviewer, this was inspired by the PDP-11 ISA article. The PDP-11 ISA is notable enough to have its own article separate from the PDP-11. The WD16 ISA is an expansion/superset of the PDP-11 ISA and is probably the most CISC 16-bit orthogonal ISA ever created. It is certainly more CISC than the PDP-11. OTOH, I did not think the WD16 ISA was notable enough to have its own article so I subsumed it in the WD16 article. Would you advise me to split it into a separate article?
WD16 was one of three Western Digital microprocessors of the era. The other two have Wikipedia entries.
The WD16 was one of the first 16-bit microprocessors. There were only four other 16-bit microprocessors introduced before the WD16: LSI-11, PACE, IMP-16, and CP1600. These others have Wikipedia entries. RastaKins (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:34, 31 October 2022 review of draft by Meowsold2


I am trying to publish a brief about a company that is gaining attention


Meowsold2 (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meowsold2 Wikipedia is not a place to do that- it must already have attention to merit an article. Any 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. Your draft is only sourced to the company itself- Wikipedia is not interested in what the company wants to say about itself. Please see the advice given to you on the draft, as well as Your First Article.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures- disclosing employment or any paid relationship with a company you are writing about is a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has attention and multiple independent articles. Also it's not meowsold.com saying anything to advertise themselves. Meowsold2 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meowsold2 Then you need to offer and summarize those sources. They cannot be staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or brief mentions. Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meowsold2 When someone selects as their username the name of the subject they intend to write about, it's a fairly natural assumption that there is a connection between the user and the subject. If you're not connected to Meowsold then fine.
You say there are multiple independent articles about the company, well it's those that have to be included in the article, not statements from the company itself. For example the second sentence says they are notorious for excellent customer service which you have sourced to the company website. Well, any company is going to say it delivers excellent customer service, so show the independent sources that say Meowsold delivers excellent customer services. The article also needs to consist of more than two sentences. Nthep (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nthep Just noting that the user says on their user talk "before you assume we are trying to advertise"(my emphasis). 331dot (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Meowsold2: I did a Google search and could only find this article from a local paper. [[1]]. It is not enough to pass Wikipedia's stringent notability guidelines. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchfork article independent national recognition? Meowsold2 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general a bias, and short sighted response. Meowsold2 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this example, the summary was taken from public reviews, as you can verify for yourself. Per your terms, I started writing a short summary "in my own words". Once again bias response from another reviewer.
TaRell Derry
1 review
3 months ago
I continue to enjoy and be impressed with MeowSold Liquidations and Auctions! The variety is great and the staff are terrific! If you haven't joined an auction, you really need to give it a try. It is fun, easy and very rewarding. Meowsold2 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meowsold2 User reviews are meaningless in terms of Wikipedia notability. They lack editorial control and fact checking. Anyone can post anything in a review. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was explaining where 'they are notorious for excellent customer service" this came from. As the bias reply was asking me to prove where this was stated. If everything written needs 100% to be sources, how come all your articles are not like that? Meowsold2 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of poorly-sourced articles indicates that those articles should be scrutinized so that they can be fixed or possibly deleted. It does not justify the creation of other ones. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This review provides no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. If such sources exist, add them. If they don't, then this topic is not sufficiently notable for an article. --Kinu t/c 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, wikipedia information should be true, but this website is very bias as you can see by your replies, and skewed toward the 1%. If the intention of this website is to write only about "big" and "powerful" monopolies, and not let an independent "small company" even be recognized, I see this is a major problem. Meowsold2 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot recognize why the content you have provided is inappropriate for Wikipedia, then there is nothing else to do here. You are welcome to use an alternative outlet. --Kinu t/c 21:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meowsold2: If it makes you feel better, I had an article I wrote about a $5.6 billion French company that had both the largest and second largest tech funding rounds in the country's history, with lots of well-known independent sources, critically ripped to shreds and deleted. So yes, it's a tough crowd. Other venues exist where you won't be so frustrated, as pointed out above. TechnoTalk (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:30, 31 October 2022 review of submission by Vedikay


Vedikay (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vedikay You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and trying to publish an article. Can you please provide me specific feedback so that I can get this article up on the site? What needs to be changed. Because i have add cite from google books and other reliable site but still my article get reject Vedikay (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vedikay You misunderstand what an article is supposed to be. Any article about this person should not merely document the work they have released. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes into detail about what is significant or influential about the article subject as the source sees it, not as the person themselves or their associates see it. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but for not what i have to do? Can i have need to change cite of the article? to have to make changes in article? Vedikay (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vedikay: you have to support the contents with reliable published sources. Amazon, Goodreads and Notionpress are not reliable, and they account for five of your seven sources. You also have to show that the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. So far you have done neither. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:48:46, 31 October 2022 review of submission by ElizabethJamey


I am wondering, how much more and what do I need to add? I have added additional resources from actual news sites, etc. ElizabethJamey (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElizabethJamey: this draft has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ElizabethJamey Rejection means resubmission is not possible. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. The sources themselves are not necessarily the issue, but their content. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a TV show and its history. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

08:55:22, 1 November 2022 review of draft by Sahar.Ahmed


Sahar Abuelhaija 08:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Can I ask for a help to assist me in publishing this article?

You have submitted it for a review, what assistance are you looking for? 331dot (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:46, 1 November 2022 review of draft by Matar Gaza


Flying Person (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Matar Gaza: what is your question? You have resubmitted the draft, and it is awaiting review.
Speaking of which, please don't just resubmit without addressing the reasons why it was declined, as that won't get you any closer to acceptance, and may actually end up with the draft rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:43, 1 November 2022 review of submission by Repton School Abu Dhabi


Hello Team, I am writing to the helpdesk because I am trying to write a page about Repton School in Abu Dhabi. This is not for promotional purposes and I would like to understand why the page keeps getting deleted.

thank you

Repton School Abu Dhabi (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Repton School Abu Dhabi: did you read the decline notice that was posted in the draft and on your talk page? Copyright violations will be deleted pretty much on sight.
There's also no real evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
And finally, as has already been pointed out to you, your username is against policy, and needs to be changed (chances are you'll be blocked soon, otherwise). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:53, 1 November 2022 review of submission by Patrick21london


To Wikipedia/ Can you advise me on how to improve my article about the science fiction film "Dune Drifter", in order for it to be published on Wikipedia please? I have added at least six references to actual reviews of this film at the time it was released in 2020. Marc Price's previous film "Colin" has an entry on Wikipedia. His next film "Dune Drifter" equally deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia because it is a very good budget science fiction film, praised by reviewers at the time. Let me know what additions I need to make to ensure that my article about "Dune Drifter" is accepted for publication in Wikipedia. From Patrick Lee, United Kingdom, 1 November 2022.

Patrick21london (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. That a filmmaker's other films may merit an article(if they do), does not mean that they all do. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:14, 1 November 2022 review of submission by Leobaker202


Leobaker202 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC) duo to the fact that this is the first time of me using Wikipedia and creating an article, as i should point out, i am actually the owner for Jettergames and at this moment in time am currently Trying to get certain things setup now, duo to the fact this is my first time using this, if needed, You could prob edit the draft i've made or create it with the info you can find, most of it mainly being on the website that was included as a Reference in the original Draft[reply]

if nothing can be created yet, i would ask if things related to jettergames could be checked on, every now and then, so an article could be made at some point, where there is enough info and things to allow the creation of an Article

Should mention too that part of why i was also doing this is because i was attempting to get the official twitter account for this stuff Verified, as we have a Official twitter and Youtube account, and also a Itch.io Account as well

We dearly wish Twitter (and every other social media network) would remove the "Wikipedia article" text from their verification requirements; it leads to spammy non-articles like this. We need in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly articles written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking to even consider having an article. If those sources don't exist, we can't have an article, full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the info is coming from the Owner of the Indie game development team? which is also the very person you're talking to atm
Considering we do intend to actually make something and just say we're going to make something and suddenly disappearing into a vaper that gets washed away by the wind of the earth
so, besides the whole twitter thing, that is one other reason i was making that too, since one is going to exist at some point, maybe not now as i can see, but at some point it will exist from someone else making one Leobaker202 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
accidently did a Typo in that or a wording mistake
Considering we do intend to actually make something and just say we're going to make something and suddenly disappearing into a vaper that gets washed away by the wind of the earth
should of been
Considering we do intend to actually make something and not be one of the people that say we're going to make something and then just suddenly disappearing into a vaper that gets washed away by the wind of the earth without nothing Leobaker202 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even when. In fact, we don't trust anything directly from the horse's mouth as a source except for claims that no reasonable person could challenge, and the subject themselves is useless for determining notability. That you intend to make games isn't relevant here; that wouldn't help with a Wikipedia article at all. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well just know that when a Wikipedia article is made at some point by someone else
if any info is incorrect on the article, it will be changed, or removed, with Legal Force if needed consideirng someone is going to make one about jettergames at some point, much like ones exist about Nintendo itself or other game development places Leobaker202 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leobaker202, Be very careful with your words we do not tolerate any sort of legal threats. You can and may be blocked for making such threats. There is no owners of any article on Wikipedia, if an article is created about your company then it will NOT be under your or anyone who works for the company control. We policies in place to ensure that everything is sourced to independent reliable source the same reason you are currently finding impossible to write the initial article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 20:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, some sources of which also happen to be incorrect at the same time, given Wikipedia also has a reputation last i checked for also having not so correct Info and then straight up complete false info on some subjects Leobaker202 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also just as quick clarification
That 'legal threat' was actually words with real intention of something that WILL happen if needed, when something is made at some point but that is only if theres ever a point where something like that has to happen for a specifice reason
Only want to make sure any info on something like that when something is made, does infact have all the correct Facts and Info about some of the things, and not having anything incorrect when someone does make something at a later point Leobaker202 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:18, 1 November 2022 review of draft by Ronnie Bond Music


Hello,

The feedback I was given is 'unreferenced'. Which part of what I wrote about my late father is unreferenced? I would like to publish this so please let me know what I need to remove.

Ronnie Bond Music (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronnie Bond Music: well, given that there isn't a single reference in it, the whole draft is unreferenced. Please see WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ronnie Bond Music A Wikipedia article must summarize what published independent reliable sources say about topics that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable musician. Articles are not for summarizing personal recollections- published sources that can be verified must support the content. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the very quick and helpful feedback. I have updated the page now with sources. Hopefully that will be enough to get it published. Ronnie Bond Music (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:16, 1 November 2022 review of draft by Maormer


I was going to publish an article about a 1978 Soviet TV movie that doesn't have an article on the English Wikipedia yet. The inspectors replied that the subject maybe not qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I understand why this is so, but quite a few relatively little-known Soviet films (with several hundred estimations on IMDB) have their own short articles, although they are rarely mentioned outside the Russian Internet space. But they have articles and they are present in the lists of Soviet films. This movie is not in the lists, although it exists. Sorry for my clumsy English, I am from Russia and don't speak English as good as I need to. Thank you in advance.

Maormer (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maormer: Your English is pretty understandable, don't worry. The issue is mainly the article being written more as a bunch of lists outside of the plot synopsis; we favour prose over lists. You also can't use the absence, presence, or condition of other articles to argue for your own. Are there any reviews of the film anywhere, online or off, in any language? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for so fast answer. Yes, this film has a lot of articles and reviews, but only in Russian. Maormer (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to replace a long and detailed description of the plot with spoilers with a short annotation, right? Or, if I will I add more facts about the production of the film from Russian-language articles, will I be able to save the "plot" section in the form in which I created it? Maormer (talk) 21:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd shorten it to more of a summary style, yes, and information about the film's production, plus the Russian-language reviews, would help. Being in Russian or offline is not an issue; we accept non-English sources, print sources, and print sources not in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I'll try. Maormer (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to seriously rework the article - I added several sections with information that is more suitable for Wikipedia, and removed a few that were, added links to each fact that I cited in these sections. I think the article is more suitable for publication in this form, but i am not sure.
I have left the "plot" section unchanged for now. But if a long description with spoilers is absolutely not suitable for Wikipedia, I will change it, of course.
And I have a little problem with the links: I have several links to the same article, but its different links in the draft. Is there any way to fix this? Thank you in advance. Maormer (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of my English in the draft. I'm afraid I've written some grammatical nonsense that will make English speakers laugh. Maormer (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or what else can you advise me to change so that the article can be published? Thank you in advance. Maormer (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

04:46:24, 2 November 2022 review of submission by Tamzid Hossain Patwary


Tamzid Hossain Patwary (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC) why my artical war decline[reply]

@tamzid hossain patwary: don't create an autobiography. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 06:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:15, 2 November 2022 review of submission by BleuGate


I would like to know why my Wiki Draft, for me, was declined. Why couldn't I post a wiki about myself?

BleuGate (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BleuGate: because this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site; you should try the likes of LinkedIn or Facebook instead (other platforms are also available).
If you are genuinely notable, per WP:GNG or one of the other notability standards, then an article could be written about you, but even then it should not be written by you yourself; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you might wanna take down the Jacksepticeye wiki, because I did things exactly how that one was. Good job... BleuGate (talk) 10:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're as notable as JackSepticEye, then yes, you may also have an article. Note, the JackSepticEye one has 165 citations, many to solid sources. And there's nothing to suggest he wrote the article himself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @bleugate: jacksepticeye is backed up by 165 separate sources. your draft is only backed up by your social media accounts. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 10:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LettherebedarklightYes, it's only backed up because it's literally me... BleuGate (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@bleugate: and your sources must be independent of yourself if you want to prove your notability. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 11:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:00, 2 November 2022 review of draft by 181g


Need help editing a draft article to fix tone and peacock terms.

181 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:58:30, 2 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Harshith D Gowda..



Harshith D Gowda.. (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harshith D Gowda.. You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell the world about themselves and anyone who exists can be included, this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability. People are discouraged from writing about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:45, 2 November 2022 review of submission by One256

What are reliable tech sources?

One256 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One256 I have placed a link to the draft for you. Any article about these processors must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own(i.e. not press releases) to say about them, showing how they are notable. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:14, 2 November 2022 review of draft by Almighty059


I am a new user and I trued creating a Wikipedia page. I created a draft titled 'Alice Jacobsen' and submitted it but it was denied. I tried to fix the errors and resubmit it but accidentally created a new page titled 'Alice "Zani" Jacobsen'. The new page was denied because I had already started the first page and was referred back to using that one. I tried editing and resubmitting the first one but it no longer seems like it's getting submitted. I am worried I deleted something that I needed to submit it or that I did something else wrong. In one of my notifications it says that the first page that was submitted is now deleted. I don't know if I should resubmit a brand new one or do something else. I am totally confused.


Almighty059 (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almighty059 To submit Draft:Alice Jacobsen you need only tap/click the "Submit your draft for review" button. If that does not work, please tell what error or other message comes up. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

06:59:48, 3 November 2022 review of submission by Haran90


Haran90 (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we make approved content for a living person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tarun_Anand wikipedia

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1119755431"