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 BioMatMan (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 26 November 2022 (→16:13:51, 26 November 2022 review of submission by BioMatMan: Reply). 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


November 20

08:30:47, 20 November 2022 review of submission by 2A02:587:8B03:4600:6547:4CB5:D477:265A


2A02:587:8B03:4600:6547:4CB5:D477:265A (talk) 08:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia is editing,only can have!

You don't really ask a question, but what you wrote is completely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:06:53, 20 November 2022 review of submission by JOSEPH CARRARO

You have responded to the "decline" of a page I submitted that is equivalent to pages that have been submitted on my behalf recently due what is not considered as "notable" posts that have been continually vandalized for years. Mention is made of postS made "In paasing" as if they are not substantial enough to warrant meNtion. Just one example is a reference to "Katrina Resolution" which at the time was passed by the Louisiana Legislature on my behalf that was stated as the only resoLution passed by the Senate recognizing an individual. The problem is that I did not have a press conference or advertise in media my accomplishment but does not take away that it is real. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JOSEPH CARRARO Please do not copy the contents of a declaration to this page. No one doubts it is real, but Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a person. If no independent sources write about something, it can't be on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments. If you were a state legislator, are there not independent sources about you? 331dot (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How absurd. As I stated I didn't inform the world of my accomplishments I was taking the time to provide absolute truth so when a disaster strikes someone oijows they can contact me. But you will continue to vandalize my account to diminish my work on behalf of others. That's what Wikipedias's become. Don't need to spend anymore time with you--since that's how you choose to spend your time and life.
DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE WIKIPEDIA MAZE YOU HAVWE SET UP SO NOTHING GETS DONE
How absurd . As I stated I didn't inform the world of my accomplishments I was taking the time to provide absolute truth so when a disaster strikes someone oijows they can contact me. But you will continue to vandalize my account to diminish my work on behalf of others. That's what Wikipedias's become. Don't need to spend anymore time with you--since that's how you choose to spend your time and life.
JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JOSEPH CARRARO: it's a bit difficult to understand what you're trying to say, but I would ask that you try to remain civil and constructive.
And please don't start a new thread with each comment; you can simply reply to the previous one.
Now, did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user decided to create a article within my userpage. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 17:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, @Pizzaplayer219. An interesting approach. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipedia does it not? And shouldn't that be exposed to the public? JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can summarise: "Because you won't let me use this encyclopaedia for a purpose it was never intended to serve I'm going to be passive-aggressive in an attempt to make you feel bad." I've been seeing arguments along this line of thought a lot recently, and it's getting fucking old. Know your audience and your venue. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article Joseph Carraro already exists! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: And it has been the target of some promotional editing by UPE socks in the past – I suspect that when the OP says that WP editors vandalize my account they mean that uninvolved WP editors have removed the promotionalism from the article about Carraro. --bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IS IT PROMOTIONAL IF IT'S NOTABLE AND TRUE?
You have responded to the "decline" of a page I submitted that is equivalent to pages that have been submitted on my behalf recently due what is not considered as "notable" posts that have been continually vandalized for years. Mention is made of postS made "In paasing" as if they are not substantial enough to warrant meNtion. Just one example is a reference to "Katrina Resolution" which at the time was passed by the Louisiana Legislature on my behalf that was stated as the only resoLution passed by the Senate recognizing an individual. The problem is that I did not have a press conference or advertise in media my accomplishment but does not take away that it is real. PART OF THE ACCOLADES OFFFERED:
Collapse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First Extraordinary Session, 2005 SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 21 BY SENATOR ULLO

ENROLLED
A RESOLUTION
To commend Senator Joseph J. Carraro of the state of New Mexico for his relief efforts to
provide assistance to the state of Louisiana in its hour of greatest need during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
WHEREAS, Senator Joseph J. Carraro immediately recognized the severe impact
that Hurricane Katrina had on the resources of the state of Louisiana; and
WHEREAS, Senator Carraro as a member of the Energy Council understood the urgency to transport materials and supplies that would be of paramount importance to
Louisiana immediately following this national catastrophe; and
WHEREAS, Senator Carraro traveled to Baton Rouge, Louisiana to confer with
members of the Senate and the office of emergency preparedness to offer his considerable influence with the energy producing members of the Energy Council on which he serves with State Senator Chris Ullo of Louisiana; and
WHEREAS, Senator Carraro was in contact with officials of Citgo Petroleum Corporation, which had an undamaged petroleum producing plant in Louisiana to arrange for the delivery of fuel via tanker to supply the ravaged Southeast Louisiana; and
WHEREAS, Senator Carraro also arranged for the government of Venezuela to provide medical airborne hospital units to be provided to the devastated areas along the Louisiana and Mississippi Gulf Coast; and
WHEREAS, his eagerness and willingness to rush to assist our state cannot go unrecognized and must be gratefully acknowledged.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate of the Legislature of Louisiana commends Senator Joseph J. Carraro for his aid and support to Louisiana in its greatest hour of need.
Page 1 of 2
SR NO. 21 ENROLLED
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that his efforts to provide fuel and medical assistance to enable our office of emergency preparedness to relieve the suffering of the citizens of Louisiana must be commended.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution shall be transmitted to the New Mexico Senate President, Ben Altamirano and the Honorable Joseph J. Carraro, New Mexico State Senator.
PRESIDENT OF THE SEN JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JOSEPH CARRARO This is not a place to just post things that are "true". In fact, we are more interested in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia is a place to summarize independent reliable sources. As someone who was a state legislator, was their no news coverage of this resolution at all? If there was not, it can't be on Wikipedia- it being true is not enough. You should post this on your social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have served in a legislature. Is it really necessary to point out that resolutions, either joint or of a single house, are of no value as reliable sources, and are not noteworthy in and of themselves?? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipeeia that should be exposed. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media, then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipedia does it not? And shouldn't that be exposed to the public? JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JOSEPH CARRARO No, that's not accurate at all. Sir, if you are interested in an actual civil conversation about what Wikipedia is for, I'm happy to discuss it with you. If you just want to rant about how you cannot use Wikipedia as your personal social media, you will have to do that somewhere else. What you tell the public is, of course, up to you, but if you aren't interested in working with us, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not a rant as what you use to argue, it is an obvious, factual statement as to what Wikipedia stands for:
So if something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media then that is okay with Wikipedia, whereas something that can be proven true but that I did not care to hold a press conference about, is not allowed, seems to indicate the real absurdity of Wikipedia does it not? And shouldn't that be exposed to the public? JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JOSEPH CARRARO: Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and notability are on public record, and have been for quite some time; I'm not sure there is all that much to 'expose'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
then you have nothing to worry about JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JOSEPH CARRARO If you find "something that is a falsehood but verified as true by the media" on Wikipedia please let us know, so that it can be corrected. If you wish to add content to the article about you, there is a very simple process you can submit suggestions on the article's talk page with the {{request edit}} template and of course a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe that everything that the media verifies is true and what I verify as true is a falsehood? Do you think that I volunteer at disasters to make up awards and thanks and resolutions or have a press conference to pat myself on the back for lives saved, or further disasters averted due to actions that would be considered notable since no other person did what I did? And only two of my ventures were chosen because they were related to how trust and friendships from the political arena helped resolve desperate needs. Interestingly an article about me from National Geographic Alsop was also excluded. So for years someone else has been rewriting my Wikipedia page expressing what they want--the Wikipedia gods -- is that done with every account? You are right -- people need to be aware what goes on, especially before contributing to a playground of riddled with misinformation. JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JOSEPH CARRARO Sir, if there is misinformation present here that you are aware of, we are happy to work on it if you tell us what it is. If media outlets are telling blatant lies to the point where a source should be banned from Wikipedia use(as WP:DAILYMAIL is), there is a forum for that sort of discussion.
It is not "your page", but an article about you, no different than the New York Times writing about you. You've been told how you can request changes to it, and what the requirements are for those changes. You may either participate with us, or not. And please don't duplicate your postings. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:26, 20 November 2022 review of submission by Cyberf1


Cyberf1 (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberf1: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:13, 20 November 2022 review of submission by Darth-Wiki-Man


Darth-Wiki-Man (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth-Wiki-Man Welcome to the AfC Help Desk. The draft is not notable for Wikipedia, and has been rejected, meaning you can not submit it again. You may want to add some of the pages content to the existing article, 4 World Trade Center. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

04:53:05, 21 November 2022 review of submission by Asaad991


my page gets declined i need help why it's happened and who can i have one i am writing about the company i am working with need support

Asaad991 (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Asaad991 We do not and will not accept advertorials. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:34, 21 November 2022 review of submission by Dakika2022


Dakika2022 (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


How can I publish this article, I already added links and citation sources?

Dakika2022 You can't, rejection means resubmission is not possible. If you have new information that the reviewer did not consider, please first appeal to them directly. But from looking at it, I don't think that's the case. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:35:26, 21 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by ForeverMemory


QUOTE: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

=> HI THERE... I AM MANAGER OF ARTIST. I TRIED TO WRITE INFO FOLLOWING CONTENT FROM PUBLISHED ARTICLES CAN BE FOUND ON GOOGLE AND ADD ON A BIT FACTS. PLEASE SHOW ME IF YOU CAN HELP TO RE-EDIT BASED ON YOUR WIKIPEDIA EXPERIENCE, THANK YOU.

QUOTE: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Many of the sources used are not reliable such as L'Officiel articles with no by-line, Spotify, Youtube, musiXmatch, blogs, forums, etc. Also, interviews with her or those affiliated with her are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability.

=> I REALLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, L'OFFICIEL IS POPULAR RELIABLE SOURCE AND THEY HAVE POLICY TO PUBLISH ARTICLE TO MENTION "BY LINE" AS SEEN WRITTEN "BY L'OFFICIEL BALTIC" OR "BY L'OFFICIEL SINGAPORE" OR "BY L'OFFICIEL MALAYSIA" DISPLAY ON TOP OF ARTICLE. FOR INTERVIEW ESPECIALLY ON FAB UK MAGAZINE, IT WAS HER OWN THOUGHT ANSWER, AND HER THOUGHT MAY CHANGE BY TIME GROWING UP. EVEN ADULT MODEL/ARTIST'S INTERVIEW ARE ALSO NOT INDEPENDENT, USED TO BE SEEN ADULT ARTISTS ALSO MAYBE ADVISED BY AGENT/MANAGER BEFORE PUBLISHING. KATHY'S ARTIST PROFILE IS VERIFIED BLUE BADGE ON SPOTIFY, APPLE MUSIC, AND KATHY'S SOCIAL PAGE FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM ALSO BEEN VERIFIED BLUE BADGE. IT SHOULD BE RELIABLE. HOPE WIKIPEDIA REVIEW, THANKS.

ForeverMemory (talk) 14:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ForeverMemory: firstly, please do not shout (ALL CAPS).
Secondly, this draft has been deleted as promotional. That being the case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OP now blocked. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:51:36, 21 November 2022 review of submission by JOSEPH CARRARO


JOSEPH CARRARO (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User now blocked for WP:NOTHERE, draft has been deleted. echidnaLives - talk - edits 23:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, why is it that none of the folks who decide what gets published on my page is identified by name. Are they fearful of legal action that would question not only their judgement, but their motives as well? We'll see. I really don't have anymore time to waste since I will be attempting to do things to help my fellow man that you will never read about, as you all will spend your time and life as the guardians of Wikipedia causing your fellow man to waste their time. I have realized years ago when my account was continually vandalized that I don't need Wikipedia with all it's falsehoods without "real'. VERIFICATION and it doesn't need me. Bother someone else.

You're a politician. Does the word "slapp" mean anything to you? It does to us, which is why SOP for veiled legal threats like this is to indefinitely block the account until they unequivocally retract their threat or their case concludes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

01:53:00, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Madsol3772


Madsol3772 (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your draft was a recipe, and encouraged/explained drug use, which is not what we do here. See WP:NOTRECIPE for more. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I have nominated this for speedy deletion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s education and its purpose isn’t to be a suggestion to take drugs. Just a combination that creates certain effects. It’s not promoting it.

01:55:23, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Madsol3772


Madsol3772 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC) I believe it’s not being an instruction manual for drugs but showing the process into making Devon Heaven. It should be published because it’s educational making sure the right doses are taken and the correct methods.[reply]

See reply above. Do not do this twice. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

02:15:46, 22 November 2022 review of submission by BMA-Nation2020

There was a ref of the production being wrapped up in September 2022.

These are part of that. The film's at a post-production stage at the moment. If you people can reconsider this, i'm sure they'll announce the title and the teaser soon.

BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source shows any notability. The first one talks in general terms about a future production, with a lot of marketingspeak thrown in; in the second source, you really have to look hard and close to find the single sentence about this film. The draft has been rejected. The film clearly isn't notable per WP:NFF, and it's a little odd to be so eager to create an article about a non-notable film that doesn't even have a title yet. Why are you "sure they'll announce the title [...] soon"? Anyway, if it should become notable once it has been released, there could be an article about it then. We don't create articles about non-notable films on the off-chance that they might become notable. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:38, 22 November 2022 review of draft by RobertBLeck1


I've gone through and deleted every article I've tried to create of Robert Leckington. Even with another username; BobbX. I've retired that username so I'm hoping maybe this duplicate flag might go away? More citations are needed to make this article approvable. I've deleted the categories section as per a previous post in my talk log. Is there anything else that can be done other than adding citations and having an unbiased edit done? thx

RobertBLeck1 (talk) 02:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertBLeck1: I moved the draft located at User:Jonrussellcring/sandbox to Draft:Robert Leckington, since drafts that are submitted for review should be in the "Draft" namespace. I see that the sandbox draft was declined as a copy of another draft, which has since been deleted on your request. I have added a note to the draft letting any future reviewers know that there are no other copies at this time. You are free to edit the draft and submit it for review once you believe that it is ready to be an article. Do not remove the previous "decline" notice; any decline notices in a draft are automatically removed when a draft is accepted and moved to the main encyclopedia namespace. But unless there should be yet another copy of the draft, it will not be declined for that reason – although it may of course be declined for other reasons, I haven't reviewed it so I don't know.
Before you do anything to the draft, however, you need to address the question on your user talk page about conflict of interest / paid editing. What is the reason that you "desperately" want the draft to be accepted?
You mention above that you have also edited as BobbX (talk · contribs). You say that you retired that account, but on its user talk page there is a post from three days ago. Please do not use more than one Wikipedia account going forward, and please post a note to the user pages (User:RobertBLeck1 and User:BobbX), per this policy. Out of curiosity, why did you create a new account? Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you. I really appreciate you helping me at least focus on getting the article more clear in scope. Secondly, the reason for the article in the first place is that I am laser driven in getting this up and available for all to see once approved as I am on the verge of something big here in the entertainment business. Not an excuse, but I also do see similar articles on wikipedia that have more or less the same information. I am just trying to abide by the regulations, somewhat, in doing the work along with a friend who said that he was able to help me get it going, non-paid. I didn't hire him, we just spoke about it and he started it. I understand that there are consequences of either hiring or that of a conflict of interest and that the page may be speedily deleted at any time. That's not completely true that I have found as I have had the BobbX "Robert Leckington" version on here for years and it never got deleted. It was only within the last two days that it has been deleted, by me. Anyway, that was when I tried to start the article, when wiki was on a separate platform as indicated when I was finally able to log into the account after having not been able to log in for a long time. When I did connect, the user interface was different and completely old looking. I had no idea that my page could be edited on that old of a platform. Incidentally, I just simply forgot I even had the user account BobbX after having been discouraged years ago for this hard to attain task. It still is, but I had a breakthrough and now I'm trying to at least capitalize on it. I started RobertBLeck1 in order to start a clean article. Finally, desperately trying to create the page really isn't what I'm trying to do. I'm formulating the page so that when I do have enough citations, gone over and edited to remove a "promotey" type voice, that it can be made available. I have been approached on and off the internet by companies who say that they can get the page rolled out and that they charge for maintenance, but I don't want that, I'm not trying to violate anything by doing that. Besides, who better to do all this than by someone who knows all about me? If that itself is a violation, I'm sorry. RobertBLeck1 (talk)RobertBLeck1 RobertBLeck1 (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RobertBLeck1 So, you want this draft to become an article because you are "on the verge of something big here in the entertainment business", as you say.
Large sections of the draft are unreferenced. For example, you need a source to say that he (you) "excelled in organized music". You can't base an autobiography on what you know; saying "who better to do all this than by someone who knows all about me" is not how Wikipedia works. David10244 (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:41, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Kateat2C2P


Hello, I've added more sources from sources of record such as Bloomberg, Bangkok Post, and The Nation. There are specific items / milestones that I think are enough to establish notability, such as the company being the first to offer certain payment services (e.g., credit card instalments, QR code payments) in Thailand.

However, overall, internet coverage of companies in the payments industry is relatively sparse, even for other established entities like Adyen, so most sources do revolve around announcements of certain milestones like funding rounds. In this context, please do advise if the additional sources / notes I've included are sufficient, or if there's anything else you'd suggest to prove notability better.

Kateat2C2P (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no significant coverage of this company in the news media or in publications (print and Internet), then by definition this company is not notable enough to merit an article in a global encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kateat2C2P The nature of Wikipedia is that some fields by definition do not receive the coverage needed to merit an article, just because the particular field does not often get attention. If you want to tell the world about your company, you could try alternatives with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, thank you for the alternatives you've mentioned. I get what you mean as well, and I appreciate the suggestions. Like I mentioned in reply to Orange Mike though, it's not that there are no sources -- I'm just hoping to double-check their sufficiency here, because the 2C2P draft seems to have similar content to existing pages like Adyen and GCash by Alipay but somehow runs into a wall. I'd like to better understand why so I can hopefully improve the draft so that it won't get automatically rejected when submitted. Kateat2C2P (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Orange Mike, I understand what you're saying. I'm just genuinely confused about the application of the notability rules/criteria, as other articles on companies in the same industry such as Adyen and GCash by Alipay have not been marked for deletion or seemingly faced as many questions about their sourcing when the content of the page entries (funding raises, product launches) and nature of the sources used are pretty much the same.
It's not that there's no coverage of 2C2P -- but considering the recent notes received about the article's deletion / subsequent editing, it seemed best to come here and double-check on whether the sources suffice, and if not, to try and clarify why.
The original article was redirected on the grounds that the company would be "merged into Alipay", which isn't actually the case and for which I've added external sources to clarify this in the draft. GCash by Alipay is in a similar situation in that Alipay has become a major backer, but GCash has remained distinct from it -- and its Wiki article has not been deleted despite this. So hopefully we could work together to update the 2C2P page to achieve the same. Kateat2C2P (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:47:51, 22 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhinav1976


hello

please help me to create this article. I am requesting for this


Abhinav1976 (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:50, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Shahroz155


Shahroz155 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahroz155 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:44:35, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Aseemghavri


why my article is going down and its not verifying please tell me solution or please edit my article and share with us

Aseemghavri (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aseemghavari Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments, and where mere existence warrants inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability, in this case, a notable person. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, not what a person wants to say about themselves. This is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves, which is why autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:35, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Frei781


Thank you so much for reviewing my submission, although it was rejected. I was very careful and paid special attention to avoid using any peacock terms without references. If you had a chance to check the references, EVERYTHING said in the article came from "independent, reliable, published sources", including the word "pioneer". I totally support the policy against using peacock terms, but in this case, the word pioneer, for example, came from references #2, 3, 4, and 5, and it's not my idea. Those references are all US magazines with a global readership, i.e., “independent, reliable, published sources”. Feel free to check all those references. I don’t waste my time to submit something in clear violation of the well-known Wikipedia policy. But I am open to advice that can make this article acceptable. Looking forward to your feedback. Thank you so much.

Frei781 (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wording quoted comes from articles designed to make their subjects seem as important as possible within their narrow fields. What we need is solid, impartial references from publications with a global readership outside a specialized field. "One of forty-six signatories to an important paper" is not an assertion of global notability for any of the forty-six signatories. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:09, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Yemsquare


I submitted this draft for review but it has not been reviewed.

Yemsquare (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you submit a draft, it can take minutes, hours, weeks, or months to be reviewed. When a draft is very obviously unacceptable, it can be declined very quickly. You submitted this version of the draft a week ago; I actually reviewed and declined it just before seeing your question here. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also re-read the responses you received here three weeks ago. You obviously did re-create the draft and submitted it again. That is a waste of the volunteer editors' time, and so is posting here to ask for preferential treatment for the recreated draft. The new draft has been rejected, too. You posted a disclosure of the fact that you have been paid to create an article about Afolarin, which is good. Undisclosed paid editing leads to blocking. But disclosing does not mean that it's now going to be possible to create articles about Afolarin – he is not notable, several reviewers have made that assessment independently of each other and the new draft also shows that very clearly. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:29, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Giuli MN


Giuli MN (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC) Giuli MNMy submission was declined for the following reason: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." The article includes and refers to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. It has a neutral and formal tone, but I had no idea what "peacock terms" were so I clicked the link and found the word "honorable" in "Words to watch", so in the article there's this phrase: "Committee of the Honorable Chamber of Senators" which is the NAME of the committee (removing the word Honorable would make it inaccurate), so if that's the only issue with the article, what can I do to get it approved?[reply]

username=Giuli MN I've tweeked things a little, the peacock things that I saw were more like "from an early age" and fixed certain other things. The entire block of Commissions should be referenced. And while "honorable" is not the issue, the entire thing should be redone using WP:COMMONNAME, which I'm guessing is something like "Senate Legislation, Codification, Justice and Labor Committee" rather than "Legislation, Codification, Justice and Labor Committee of the Honorable Chamber of Senators". I'm not sure that his positions in student government at American University should be part, and if they are, it should probably be rephrased.
On the other hand, there is *zero* question as to whether there should be an article for Patrick Kemper, there should, we just need to get it right. (Being a member of the national legislature of a nation easily meets the requirements for notability and being a member of the legislature of the first level subdivision (like Alto Paraná Department) would as well in almost all cases.))Naraht (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Giuli MN I have left a comment on your draft as a guide to how you can make your article better. Cheers Jamiebuba (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:28, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Ladyfromafar


Hi,

I'd like to understand better what kind of information is needed so the article is not considered to be an advertisement. Hungary is not a huge country and thus our scholars rarely become world-famous, but Dr Mesko is actually well respected (and the highest cited) outside of Hungary as well. What do you suggest including in the article?

- Interviews from outside sources with Dr Mesko to illustrate that he is indeed well-known? if yes, what is preferred? Professional (medical) websites? Or more general ones, like Politico or BBC? Or university pages (like Stanford's?) Or all?

Examples: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertalan+Mesko%22+&rlz=1C1GCEA_enHU975HU975&biw=1536&bih=792&tbm=nws&ei=m-R8Y8TOOYKM9u8Pt_eC8AM&ved=0ahUKEwiEiLK6h8L7AhUChv0HHbe7AD44ChDh1QMIDQ&uact=5&oq=%22Bertalan+Mesko%22+&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MQAzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB46BQghEKABUIgHWIgHYNQNaABwAHgAgAF8iAHDAZIBAzEuMZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-news

- More of his scientific work? if yes, what kind? 

        =>More studies published in medical journals? 
        =>Or more books written by him?

Examples: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bertalan-Mesko https://scholar.google.hu/citations?user=HAshCakAAAAJ&hl=hu https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Mesk%C3%B3+B&cauthor_id=29184890 https://www.jmir.org/search?term=Bertalan%20Mesk%C3%B3&type=author&precise=true https://www.nature.com/search?author=Bertalan%20Mesk%C3%B3

- Or more background on the field of futurism or medical futurism?

Your help is appreciated, thanks in advance!


Ladyfromafar (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:05, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Jolumolo


I am sorry, but it is not clear to me if the changes made on the article fulfill the observations made by the reviewers. Is the article now considered for publication?

Jolumolo (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 totally unreferenced sections and none of the other references are independent, the draft has not been submitted for review. Theroadislong (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. Could you give me some examples of a referenced section? What do you mean by "none of the other references are independent?
I have written may scientific papers but I do not have experiences with Wikipedia. Your help is highly appeciated. Jolumolo (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sections “Research at the Freie Universität Berlin”, “Bennemann’s impact and legacy through trainees” “Achievements in collaboration with Habilitanden” and “Personal life” personal life have no sources, where did the content come from? Independent references are references NOT written by Bennemann. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, independent references aren't written or directly influenced (read: commissioned) by Bennemann or one of his direct associates, including PR firms he hires. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:23, 22 November 2022 review of submission by ArmanT09


ArmanT09 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


18:41:23, 22 November 2022 review of submission by ArmanT09



Hello I would like to know why my page was declined.

It was rejected because it shows no evidence of any notability and zero independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:16:44, 22 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gill-liv


Hello, I'm a new creator of pages and the first page I have attempted to edit has been declined. I'm wondering whether you could give me some guidance with regards to where I am going wrong. The page I am referring to is for Ms Clare Manchon. Hoping that you can help me. Best wishes, Gill-liv


Gill-liv (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say the page "is for Ms Clare Manchon". What is your connection with Manchon? Why have you not declared that connection? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gill-liv I don't think you "compose scoring". David10244 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:50, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Team Western


[User:Team Western|Team Western]] (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Team Western: you haven't asked a question, but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. See Wikipedia's autobiography policy—Wikipedia is not a place to be writing about yourself. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are NEVER written in first person tense. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:10, 22 November 2022 review of submission by Cindyorioli


Cindyorioli (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC) He is so important that another technique named HQI was based on Pedro Makiyama system of ATPP, I can give you more reference to understand that this subject is important. He was on TV, magazine, travel all over Brazil and Japan teaching his technique, please consider entering the subject under wikipedia. Gratitude[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:ATPP - Approach, transformation and programming of the preconscious
Your draft currently only has one reference, which doesn't prove notability, and it reads like an advertisement. Before coming to the help desk, I would encourage you to read the advice left by the declining reviewer and ensuring you read the relevant pages linked. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Cindyorioli Did you take that picture yourself? David10244 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:37, 22 November 2022 review of draft by Blondieras


Hi. The critique I got was that the piece seems promotional, but I'm not sure why that comment was made. I've removed anything that seemed like opinion and not fact. As a Jamaican diaspora institution, it's a worthy subject matter. Please advise what changes need to be made to get this post approved.

Blondieras (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blondieras: that review comment about promotional tone was left two months ago; since then the draft has been edited and resubmitted, and is now awaiting review. FWIW, there is IMO a subtle positive POV throughout it, but I personally wouldn't decline it on that basis anymore. (Which isn't to say I wouldn't decline it, only I wouldn't do so on this basis.)
I note that you haven't disclosed any conflict of interest (COI) with regards to this subject. If you have one, please disclose it now. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


November 23

02:40:20, 23 November 2022 review of draft by ShowingGreed


I'm requesting help because I was told that the article needed more sources and formal tone, and I don't know how to to do that. ShowingGreed (talk) 02:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ShowingGreed: the sources cited aren't sufficient to establish the subject's notability; we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Also, the article tone and style is in parts 'chatty', esp. the 3rd para. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:00, 23 November 2022 review of submission by Iknowx


I have included all the details about the person Mr. Surya Shriniwaas along with references. He played hero role in several telugu films such as Karam Dosa, Nenosta, Neevalle Nenunna, Commitment and few more. Please guide me how can get it published in wikipedia. Thank you in advance. Iknowx (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iknowx: there is no way to get this published on Wikipedia. The draft was declined no fewer than seven (!) times, and finally rejected; it will not be considered further. Time to drop this and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The right call was made. Subject has borderline notability and the submitter persistently refused to address concerns in favour of just resubmitting hoping the issues would go away. MaxnaCarta (talk) 11:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Iknowx And you are claiming that you took the picture of him that is in the draft -- it is marked as "own work". @DoubleGrazing, if this picture needs to be flagged, I don't know how to do it. David10244 (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:50, 23 November 2022 review of submission by Khaleefresh

Khaleefresh is a Nigerian Born:13-6-2001 Age:21

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

Khaleefresh (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]



Khaleefresh (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khaleefresh No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

10:12:38, 24 November 2022 review of submission by KL Ravi


KL Ravi (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KL Ravi You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. If you would like to ask a question, please edit this section of the page. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:29, 24 November 2022 review of submission by Oscarfelix.may

Each time I tried to pubish I got a different reason for rejection. Each time I addressed the concerns raised and then there was a different reason. I challenged the latest decision that the subject 'Steuart Padwick' was not sufficiently notable. I have made a number of changes, simplifying the entry and Steuart Padwick has grown as a designer and sculptor with more noteworthy public works (which are already on Wikipedia - e.g. The Hope Sculpture) I hope this satisfies your requirements.


Oscarfelix.may (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscarfelix.may The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have documented this man's work, but we are looking for more than that- a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. As reviewers have noted, you haven't done that, and the prospect of that happening seems low, which is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:25:59, 24 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 69leiden69


Good day, I have tried to work on a wiki page on the artist William Brand. There is one in Dutch, but not yet in English.

He is an architect / sculptor , creating lighting sculptures. His work is for example shown at art shows like Tefaf. Every year he creates new collections of lighting sculptures, and he is at times commissioned to create one off work.

I somehow can not get the English version online, and although I am not very prone to the technicalities of Wikipedia, the content is clear + with articles.

Would someone be interested in zooming in, and share what I am doing incorrect?

69leiden69 (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@69leiden69: have you actually submitted your draft at any point? Only asking, as the one you're linking to above hasn't been submitted, and therefore won't be reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

08:12:21, 25 November 2022 review of submission by Sylveno


Sylveno (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My username is Sylveno I would be happy to know why my article ,BBCH code for tea plants, was refused for publication. Maybe I could correct the article.Sylveno (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sylveno: did you not read the decline notice? It says that an article already exists at BBCH-scale (and I don't think we need a separate article on only tea plants specifically). Also, your draft is virtually unreferenced, listing (without citing) only a single source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:50, 25 November 2022 review of draft by IanGarnerDomainer


I have reviewed the content and cannot see any opportunity to add extra references / alternative references. The links are from both organisations (Escrow), well known domain outlets (Assets Show) and credible independent domain reporters (James Isles AND Domain Name Wire) as well as others. The domain name is the 2nd largest domain by value ever to be formerly reported and is of great interest to many domain enthusiasts who will want to know some details of the transaction and have somewhere to refer back to as and when the page gets developed.

If you could give some additional insight into what might make this a publishable article, I would really appreciate it,

Many thanks

Ian IanGarnerDomainer (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IanGarnerDomainer If there are no other references, the topic likely does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IanGarnerDomainer: the sources are a mix of blogs and commercial vendors, in other words all primary, and as such insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. (The InvestingTodays.com piece looks like it might be secondary, but I don't know how independent and reliable it is, and in any case it alone isn't enough.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:23, 25 November 2022 review of draft by Scandinavian Music


To whom this may concern.

I would be very thankful to get guidance on how to list up my sources correctly in order for the article to be approved by the editors.

Looking forward hearing from you.

Scandinavian Music (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scandinavian Music: you need to cite your sources inline (WP:ILC), so that it's clear which source supports what information, and how much if any remains unsupported. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:36, 25 November 2022 review of submission by 71.185.36.172


71.185.36.172 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected. Please refer to multiple earlier threads on the same topic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:20, 25 November 2022 review of draft by EthanM73


Hello and thank you in advance for your assistance. If someone can please guide me as to where the issue(s) are specifically, I can look into it and fix. There is significantly more than topical mention of this subject in the citing submitted. In fact, I think this article is over-cited if anything. I have carefully provided relevant, non-bias and neutral information with third party published articles, books, professional (company) blogs, and websites. Although there are many press releases published online, they were intentionally kept off in accordance to wiki guidelines, despite their support to the subject. This is article is meant to cover the Founder & CEO of a major Los Angeles event (primary); a notable filmmaker with published works and appearances on prime time networks, and documented entrepreneur. I am more than happy to edit and/or revise any information that may appear to be superfluous or not neutral in accordance to Wikipedia, but will need to be directed. Please advise and thank you again for your assistance.

EthanM73 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EthanM73 If you have an association with Mr. Pelletier, it needs to be disclosed, please see conflict of interest. If your relationship involves any form of compensation(i.e they are a client, being employed, etc) the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see the paid editing policy.
You have done a nice job of documenting and sourcing the things that Mr. Pelletier has done. The trouble is, that's not what we are looking for. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Mr. Pelletier, showing how he meets the definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling us what the subject has done, and goes into detail about their significance or influence as the source sees it, not as the subject sees it about themselves. What are your three best sources that chose to discuss Mr. Pelletier? 331dot (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time with your reply. It's truly nice to hear more than "Get it right" with links to policy. So, thank you for that. I am in no way connected or commissioned to write anything on Wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter). If I need to declare that somewhere, please do advise. Mr. Pelletier qualifies as a notable person in that the culmination of his Works in the entertainment industry have lead to founding a very well-known and award-winning international film festival in Los Angeles, partnered with Caruso and AMC Theatres among others major brands; hosting red carpet celebrity events annually. His position and achievements in this regard are well-documented online w/ approved wiki sources like "Rotten Tomatoes" among others. The purpose (I felt) for adding additional information about Mr. Pelletier was to offer credentials and background as to how he arrived at this "known for" work.
That said, this is a living person, and it needs to be done correctly. So thank you again for your guidance. Please let me know if this particular source below is in-line with what you're looking for, and if so, I can supply others. Do video interviews with professional companies and platforms qualify?
Magazine Blog: Final Draft (leading entertainment industry brand): https://blog.finaldraft.com/davinci-international-film-festival-hosts-first-live-event-in-two-years?utm_campaign=Blog&utm_content=221868565&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-97021458311&fbclid=IwAR01N_7BCGfceCsSIqaoir9Uc7Lwmlt2Jc7tbQcFsXWAxdx4VuVsyqVUT_Y
Thank you again. EthanM73 (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately blogs are rarely considered to be reliable sources and what is your connection to User:KleanMedia? Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In wiki policy for reliable sources under user-generated content, newspaper and magazine blogs are an exception. KleanMedia contact was sourced from a general contact form inquiry at the official festival website regarding coverage. EthanM73 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The blog post is an interview so is not indpendent. Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Despite Mr. Pelletier's credits, associations, and media coverage, it appears he's not qualifying for an article at this time. I will revisit this later with the proper sources, if not published by someone by then. Thank you for the support and guidance. EthanM73 (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

05:24:08, 26 November 2022 review of submission by Dirtypillowlmao


Hello. This page I have written is a English translation of a Spanish Wikipedia article on a subject I am interested in. Here is the original article: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justo_Armas Thank you for your time. Dirtypillowlmao (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different Wikipediae have different standards in re sourcing and content, and the English Wikipedia tends to both have tougher standards than most other projects and more rigourous enforcement. That this is a translation from es.wp means little. I will note that a disproportionate amount of your sources appear to be website homepages, which are useless as sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:12:51, 26 November 2022 review of submission by EmuFan


EmuFan (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to the previous article reviewer (Zxcvbnm) on their talk page, as was recommended here the last time I used this "Ask for help" function. Unfortunately, at some point after several weeks of waiting, they simply deleted my message off their talk page, without a response. Can we please get this article re-reviewed by someone?

EmuFan Who is "we"? Please describe what has changed since the draft was rejected. If new sources have come to light, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we = the people who have contributed to this article. What has changed is a couple years' worth of significant notability via articles on reputable/industry standard websites. EmuFan (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can list them in here, if needed. They're already in the draft article. EmuFan (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I'm willing to let it be resubmitted. I'll add the template. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Much appreciated. EmuFan (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:51, 26 November 2022 review of submission by BioMatMan

Hi, I recently uploaded my second article on relevant academics in the field of bioinspired and sustainable materials. Specifically one about professor Fernandez Draft:Javier_G._Fernandez. Today I received a comment that my article has been declined, suggesting that it wasn't supported by enough secondary references. I'm new to this, so before preparing the article I went through the Wikipedia definition of reliable secondary sources and excluded those which didn't fit. I ended up adding 53 references from CNN, New_scientist, The_New_York_Times, Wired_(magazine), The_Guardian... spamming from 2012 to this year (I actually read that a good way to know if a secondary source was legit was to check if it had a Wikipedia article, which I did)... I added some primary references (i.e., scientific articles by prof. Fernandez) in those points I thought they were important but only when they were also supported by secondary ones. I had the impression I did a good job, so I must confess I got the rejection with sadness. Since I have put quite a lot of time into preparing this article, I was hoping I could get more detailed information on what I did wrong and how I could improve it.

BioMatMan (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I am curious if this is the usual way, but to prepare this article, I read several articles about other scientists close to Prof. Fernandez. Specifically, I used what I learned writing Peter Fratzl, the article on Donald E. Ingber, and the article on Samira Musah, who is listed as a notable student of the previous one (Same for Draft:Javier G. Fernandez). BioMatMan (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BioMatMan: the first thing to say is, your draft wasn't rejected (which would be the end of the road), only declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons.
Secondly, the reviewer expressly invited you to contact them if you disagreed with the review. Have you done that? The reviewer always has the advantage of having spent some time and effort trying to get to the bottom of things, whereas here at help desk we're looking at these reviews from the position of outsiders, to some extent.
I'll also mention that having 53 (!) cites may sound like a convincing case, but a large number like that actually becomes counterproductive (see WP:REFBOMBING) as it makes it difficult to find the substantive sources which actually establish notability, from the proverbial haystack of dross. You don't really need several sources to support most statements, so you would be better off picking the strongest and discarding the rest.
Note also that it isn't enough for sources to be of high quality, they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. Case in point: The Guardian is indeed a reliable secondary source, but the article cited makes only two mentions of Fernandez, and as such does not establish notability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @DoubleGrazing, Thank you for your fast and informative answer. As I mentioned, I'm pretty new to this, so from the message, I understood that this was the venue for such questions.My apologies for the mistake, it never occurred to me that I could write directly to the reviewer. I completely agree with the point that adding overlapping references doesn't add information. In the specific case you mentioned, I added them because it was a general statement (XXX is considered...), so I thought that even if overlapping, using only one reference might not suffice to make such a generalization. Also, I thought that adding too many references, while it is not the proper etiquette for published articles, would help to assess notability at this stage.
Thanks again for your reply. Just to confirm, the proper way to contact the reviewer is by writing on their Talk page (User talk:Cabrils), right? BioMatMan (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:50, 26 November 2022 review of submission by Aerials34


Aerials34 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aerials34: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1123961112"