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 Maormer (talk | contribs) at 11:13, 23 May 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Gelsomino's_miraculous_voice). 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


May 17

04:15, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Yorkmich23

My page keeps getting rejected. I have numerous articles that mention my name, background, experience in the music industry, and current role as a Managing Partner for Range Media Partners - a leading management and production firm in Hollywood with a numerous list of A-List clients. Is there any chance this can be reconsidered? I've been trying to get this approved for a very long time. Yorkmich23 (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YOURSELF. There’s a reason we discourage writing about yourself. By the way, are you using multiple accounts? “You” have been trying to get it approved yet not the author of the article? Using multiple accounts is strictly prohibited. You also are not notable for our project. Most of your mentions are from articles not actually discussing you and certainly not in sufficient depth. We don’t care what role you have either. You need to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of sufficient depth to have a biography written about you by someone. The rejection is final. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Amendment: Multiple accounts are usually strictly prohibited unless for certain reasons I doubt this editor is making use of) — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I'm not sure how i'm using multiple accounts? I've only had access to this one that I'm currently using. I'd sincerely appreciate any help here as this is for my boss, Evan Winiker. Who is the author of the article, if it wasn't our account? In regards to significant coverage, if you type "Evan Winiker" on google, you'll see numerous articles published by Billboard, People Magazine, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, and Variety - specifically about him and his background. Is there any chance of reconsidering as we've been working on this for almost a year? Yorkmich23 (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:43:22, 17 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Wmydaughter


The draft requires changes. I need assistance to edit or correct the sentences due to which the draft is rejected. The content is genuine and can be published for the readers to know about a philanthropist Wmydaughter (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@wmydaughter: sorry, we won't edit your draft for you. lettherebedarklight晚安 06:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply. I request you to kindly inform the sentences or words which you feel are inappropriate for publishing. This will be greatly appreciated. Wmydaughter (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wmydaughter: there is little point in starting to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. The entire draft is a promotional vanity piece, poorly referenced (and with half the sources not working, even more so), and with no evidence of notability. As such, I have declined it, and I would suggest that it is significant improved before next submission, lest it be rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:00, 17 May 2023 review of submission by TheNewCivilian

My article has been rejected as it seems to be "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I currently have one reliable, secondary, strictly independent paper that talks about the topic in depth, but can't find any other paper that does so (only small mentions, newspaper articles, etc.). As the topic is quite similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDTGV, which seems to not contain any independent source, I now wonder what I need to do to verify the information of my article correctly. TheNewCivilian (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNewCivilian: your draft has been declined (not rejected) not just for inadequate referencing but also for the related but separate reason of lack of apparent notability. Per WP:GNG, we would need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources for this draft to be accepted (note that these sources can be in a language other than English). With only one such source cited, this will again be declined.
Modelling your drafts on other, existing articles is a mistake (an understandable one, but a mistake all the same), as you may be trying to emulate ones that themselves have problems. You need to work with reference to the currently applicable guidelines and policies instead, most notably the core requirements of verifiability and notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for your in depth explanation! I will further try to find sources that fit the General notability guideline requirements. I am currently still struggling to find more scientific work, that mentions more details about TrenOK.
I am still confused if i.g.
- fan reports
- Trademark records
- YouTube videos
or news article could work as reference and if so under what circumstances? TheNewCivilian (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheNewCivilian: I'm not quite sure what the first source you've listed is, but it doesn't look entirely suitable to me. The trademark record can be used to verify the existence and details of the trademark, but that in itself doesn't mean much. YouTube is just a platform, so the quality of any material hosted there depends on the source behind it (as in, a report by eg. Rai News meets the GNG standard, a video of the uploader's dog chasing the Bigfoot doesn't). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 17 May 2023 review of submission by AAkash Kumar Karate

I have submitted an article but it has been deleted. i am not sure why i have given all the details correct also is it compulsory to mention the reference. AAkash Kumar Karate (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:00, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Williamhenryincedo

Hello, I have written an article about Incedo Inc. and sent it for review on 11-May-2023. However, I am unable to verify its current state. Could you please assist here? Williamhenryincedo (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It got deleted because it was blatant advertising. Please stop trying to recreate the article. We don’t publish promotional pieces on companies. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Darasimi2019

i don't know why it shows rejected and it is a notable company Darasimi2019 (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it’s not notable, you’ve been told many times why yet continued to submit the article anyway. It’s now rejected and will never be considered further. Please let this go. It isn’t right for us. Sorry. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 17 May 2023 review of submission by GoldGaming

Why was this draft deleted? GoldGaming (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:56, 17 May 2023 review of draft by SCS1934


I have inadvertently created a duplicate title, because pages already exist about other people with the same name as my subject: Rboert Poole (Historian) etc. Mine should be Robert Poole (Industrialist). I cannot figure out how to change the title now that the article is ready for submission. Please tell me how to change the title. I believe I am autoconfirmed and should be able to submit my article without review, but I seem unable to do so because of the article title duplication problem.

SCS1934 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SCS1934 no problem! I moved it (read that for instructions) for you to Draft:Robert Poole (industrialist). When you are ready to publish it, you can move it to article space and if needed, change the title then as well. S0091 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance and assistance in correctly re-naming the article on Robert Poole. As you instructed, I have moved it to Article Space, and the corrected title appears there as well. Unfortunately, the article is still showing as needing review. I thought I was autoconfirmed and could therefore publish it directly. Can you help me figure out what else I need to do in order to avoid waiting months for a review by other editors? Thank you. SCS1934. SCS1934 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SCS1934 you did it correctly and you can remove that template at the top about it being created via AfC. It's not uncommon to have "leftover" things when moving from draft space that you have to cleanup. S0091 (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt reply about my article on Robert Poole, but I have no idea how to remove the template using AfC. Could I trouble you for a bit more guidance? SCS1934 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SCS1934 click edit, then select the template, then hit the delete key on your keyboard. Easy! :) S0091 (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Done! I very much appreciate your assistance. SCS1934 (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am very confused. The article I am working on is long, it contains a good amount of information, and has multiple links. I met the person once but I am not sure why that is a problem. Can someone help?

Debbie Critchfield Petjayso (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No clue how my article did not get through and this one did Petjayso (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petjayso: your draft wasn't accepted because it fails (and has failed, repeatedly) to demonstrate that the subject is notable according to the WP:GNG standard of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Does that mean that if i fix it up, it will get accepted? I am still confused, as this one got accepted with a single citation Petjayso (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petjayso: it means that if you add sources which are sufficient to meet the GNG notability standard, then yes, the draft could get accepted.
I don't know why you're comparing this draft, on a US politician, against any existing article, least of all one on a village in Poland? But if it helps: populated places can be inherently notable, per WP:GEOLAND; and in any case, that article was created 15 years ago (by a bot, at that) when the guidelines and requirements were almost certainly different. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the village in Poland because it came up 3rd try on a random generator. Petjayso (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petjayson This is a person who holds statewide elected office. (While not a good ref, https://ballotpedia.org/Idaho_Superintendent_of_Public_Instruction shows that it is.) Given that, I would personally accept this article if there was a *single* external link, either a state newspaper indicating that she was elected, *or* a state owned website for the position indicating she held that. Her predecessor has a page (and I don't think that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Naraht (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think that's quite a generous interpretation of WP:NPOL; just because the USA elects for many positions which elsewhere would be appointed civil service, I don't think should mean they're all inherently notable (especially in a post which itself doesn't have an article, therefore making it more difficult to argue it is particularly notable either). But fine, if someone wants to accept this on that basis, let them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly feel that refusal to create/or deleting it because elsewhere it is a civil service office would be clearly against WP:NPOL. (No article, but there is a category Category:Superintendents of Public Instruction of Idaho. Naraht (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it up this morning. Petjayso (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to submit it again would you accept it? Do you have the authority? Prob not Petjayso (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been submitted. Right now Debbie Critchfield is a redirect to her predecessor, I've requested it be deleted for the move. (Basially when the link to the mainspace page goes red, I can move it.Naraht (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right now have reached out to both the administrator who turned down the removal of the redirect and the person who just rejected it. At worst, more references are needed, but qualifying under NPOL is a hill that I'll die on.Naraht (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Kenny093

I don’t get what the problem is? Kenny093 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenny093: as the last reviewer says, the sources are insufficient to support the contents, or to establish the subject's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Kampasbill

why my draft is rejected?the article was published by its author. He gave me the right to upload it? What do I need to send you to be sure it's not a copy? Kampasbill (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kampasbill it was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, not because it was a copyright violation, however it may be deleted because it is. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Advm pb

I have written the article from neutral point of view. I have also added inline and external references. I did a thorough research before writing and submitting this article. I am not understanding what more should i do for verifying this page. I wish someone could help me with exactly what changes to be done. Advm pb (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(User indeffed) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 17 May 2023 review of submission by Jovial script

why did you get rid Jovial script (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has been got rid of, yet, but give us a mo... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted the draft. It was nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 18

06:52, 18 May 2023 review of submission by TheUmayr

I am just utterly disappointed and devastated at the same time. The reason given for the declination of my article is completely baseless and far from the reality. I am being told that this is just like a "fanpage", I seriously didn't expect that Wikipedian Reviewer would be so immature and arrogant. The information that I presented in my article is completely verified and for the reference, I attached the number of highly dominant media and government websites which proved my fact to be trustworthy and correct. This reviewer don't know the hardwork and the time taken for the research but he just came and declined in a very immature arrogant way, which has devastated and depressed to the heights. Remember this thing, the reality is reality and it cannot be changed no matter what, the personality I wrote about, he was jailed for 9 months and was kept in the most atrocious interrogating centres called PAPA I and PAPA II, he was thrown along with the dead bodies. And that too on the baseless and fabricated allegations which completely proved to be wrong and their own highly ranked district officer came to rescue him. And now tell me how would you define it if you are at my place? Will you support the inhumane atrocities of those interrogating centres, or will you tell the truth that Abdul Gani Naseem was the one who faced this inhumane atrocities creep policy of the government. Does Wikipedia teach us to stand with the oppressor to make it look "Neutral" ? Are these the teachings here? If it is so I am leaving with a devastated self of mine.

Always Yours, Sanai Umair TheUmayr (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheUmayr, I assume that you are talking about Draft:Abdul Gani Naseem. That draft violates the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. It will never be accepted into this encyclopedia in its current form, no matter how bitterly you complain. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. There are plenty of websites that welcome advocacy. Wikipedia is not among those websites. Cullen328 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did a good job, but remember to make it just like a topic in an encyclopedia. Not an essay in 7th grade (although you would get an A+) but an encyclopedia. Petjayso (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:56:35, 18 May 2023 review of submission by Maaargaritka


I have a question, I have written an article about digital ecology and I have made a lot of changes to it, however it keeps showing a flag that the article does not have an encyclopaedic style. Should this flag disappear at which point the system automatically decides that it is the correct article and I have to keep making changes until it does? Or do I have to wait until someone from the moderators reads the article and removes this flag? If so, how long is the waiting time for this? i How do I contact such a person? thank you!

Maaargaritka (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Maaargaritka: this isn't an AfC issue anymore now that the article has been published, so you may wish to direct any future such queries eg. to the Teahouse. But since you've asked, no, this tag (in fact, pretty much all tags, AFAIK) won't disappear automatically, it must be manually removed. Anyone can remove it, incl. yourself, once the highlighted issue has been sufficiently addressed. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:41, 18 May 2023 review of submission by Hobobob

FYI - Dave Lewis is underground, like John Evans or Chris Torrance. He avoids the mainstream, although you might also say they avoid him. He is out of favour with Literature Wales because he had the gall to single-handedly set up the biggest poetry contest in Wales - for that alone he deserves a Wiki page! (You should remember they get millions of pounds a year to do this and haven't.)

As a poet he is one of Wales's best and as a novelist is gaining in reputation. He has done more to help promote Welsh literature over the last 15+ years than anyone I know of yet stil he gets overlooked by the arts 'business' / establishment in our poor third world country.

There are lots of 'newsworthy' links in the article, although maybe I've added too much info on top of that? I have only done so as some pages I notice you call stubs and demand more info.?

When I see other very 'ordinary' writers and poets from Wales with their own page I laugh. I doubt Dave Lewis will ever 'sell out' to these quangos but for his groundbreaking poetry he at least desrves a mention IMHO. But I bow to your greater judgement.

Cheers Rob :) Hobobob (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobobob: thanks for all that. Did you have a question you wanted to ask?
If Dave can surface from the underground and 'sell out' enough to get himself featured in independent and reliable secondary sources (don't have to be 'mainstream', whatever that means exactly), then he may one day warrant an article. Meanwhile, keep fighting the good fight! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are 'independent and reliable' but who knows what he'll be up to time goes on. Cheers anyway. Hobobob (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 18 May 2023 review of submission by TheWilliamGibson

Unsure why my submission is bein rejected. I am not affiliated with the company I am submitting. Is there a way to prove that I am not affiliated? TheWilliamGibson (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheWilliamGibson You can't prove a negative, but you didn’t pick the company at random to edit about. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because, whether you are affiliated with the company or not, the draft is contrary to our purpose. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not humanely possible for it to be "your" submission. The draft was rejected 15 minutes before your account was created. aaronneallucas (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 19

03:34, 19 May 2023 review of submission by 크리에이팁

Hello, This is Creatip. We want upload ourselves on Wikipedia, so we to know what information should be changed, to upload on Wikipedia.

Thank you. 크리에이팁 (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(User indeffed) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Homelol12345

how to make my wiki popular Homelol12345 (talk) 07:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Homelol12345. This Roblox game is not notable and not eligible for a Wikipefia article. Promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please go promote this game on other websites that allow promotional activity. Not here. Cullen328 (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Bibergroupie

Rejection criteria Draft:Marko E. Weigert compared to Toula Limnaios Hi, I modelled my draft Draft:Marko E. Weigert on the article Toula Limnaios and it would seem to me that there’s no substantial difference between the notability of these two persons - is the only criteria difference between them the fact that there are articles about Limnaios in other languages? Bibergroupie (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibergroupie: you shouldn't be modelling your draft on any existing article (with the possible exception of one rated Good), but instead following the relevant guidelines and policies. In this case, you specifically need to show that the subject is notable, either by the general WP:GNG standard, or a special one such as WP:CREATIVE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bibergroupie. You modeled your draft on an entirely unreferenced biography of a living person, an article that is ten years old, in poor condition, and at significant risk of being deleted. That article is a policy violation. I suggest, instead, that you model your efforts on Good articles and Featured articles. Wikipedia has over 6.6 million articles, and at least a million or more are in very poor condition. We do not need any more new articles that are in very poor condition. We want high quality articles. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the existence of articles about this person in other language versions of Wikipedia, such articles are of no significance on English Wikipedia, except to the extent that they identify reliable, independent published sources that devote significant coverage to the person. That is all we care about when assessing the suitability of a biographical article. Cullen328 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:40, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Sujeetrao60

why my article is rejected? Sujeetrao60 (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujeetrao60: it wasn't rejected (which would mean you couldn't resubmit), only declined. And the reasons for this are given in the decline notice, namely that the draft was insufficiently referenced, and didn't provide evidence of the subject's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Surojit mondal memes

As mentioned in the decline notice, that this page does not has sufficient content to have page of its own, but the topic was in the position of 58th of most wanted Wikipedia Page. And that was the main reason why I made time to actually write this article. Please look into this matter. Thanks. Surojit mondal memes (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surojit mondal memes: more to the point, the decline notice also says that this topic is covered in an existing article, HTTP 404, and any new salient content could/should be merged into that (with this title acting as a redirect to it). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already added the History part, Causes and the Reasons in the HTTP 404 page. Thanks for your cooperation:) Surojit mondal memes (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:09, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Alan347

Hi guys. I can't understand what the problem with my inline citations is !!! Alan347 (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan347: the problem is that there aren't enough of them. The first citation comes c. ⅔ down, leaving the first half of the draft entirely unsupported. In articles on living people, all material statements, anything potentially contentions, and all private personal details must be clearly referenced by citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Piano123piano

I was trying to make a translated version of the Spanish article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenas_(cantante). I thought since it was already out there in Spanish, it would work in English.

What do you recommend? I know you mentioned having reliable sources. The Spanish article includes several sources from renowned media outlets in Spanish, and those are the same references I kept for the English article.

These outlets include Billboard Argentina, a Spanish version of Billboard magazine with a monthly reach of more than 10 million visits across platforms.

Also from La Nación, Argentina's most famous newspaper.

From ACI Prensa, a catholic news portal in Spanish part of the EWTN network, with more than 3.2 million unique monthly visitors and 3 million followers on social networks

From Aleteia, also a huge catholic news portal in Spanish, with nearly 650,000 registered to the newsletter and over 3,600,000 fans on Facebook, it reaches more than 15 million unique visitors per month.

And many more.

Aren't those references good enough?

And if there are any references that should be taken out, just let me know.

Another question: if the article should be shorter, can you help me know what should I exclude?

Thank you! Piano123piano (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piano123piano: I haven't looked at the sources in any detail, but just to explain that it isn't enough to have reliable and independent sources, these sources must also provide significant coverage of the subject in question. With that in mind, perhaps you could highlight the three sources that are strongest, ie. most clearly meet the WP:GNG criteria? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
Here are just some of the many respected sources used for the article:
https://billboard.com.ar/athenas-recibe-nominacion-al-latin-grammy/
https://caras.perfil.com/noticias/celebridades/que-fue-de-la-vida-de-athenas-venica-de-ktrask-cantante-religiosa-mama-y-nominada-a-los-latin-grammy.phtml
https://www.cronica.com.ar/sociedad/La-nueva-vida-de-Athenas-Venica-causo-furor-en-Cantanino-se-fue-a-Estados-Unidos-y-la-nominaron-a-los-Grammy-20230221-0047.html
https://www.mdzol.com/sociedad/2022/11/13/quien-es-athenas-la-cantante-argentina-que-brilla-en-latinoamerica-que-aun-no-descubren-en-el-pais-290459.html
https://www.pronto.com.ar/espectaculos/2015/4/28/asi-estan-hoy-las-chicas-de-ktrask-la-banda-surgida-de-cantanino-97130.html
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/se-entregan-los-premios-martin-fierro-nid501079/
Also, you should note that her relevance is due to her succeeding in the music industry twice: first as a member of the child group KtrasK when she was 10, and again as a young adult as a christian artist.
Let me know if you need me to deepen on any other subject to prove the relevance of her article being on Wikipedia Piano123piano (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piano123piano: Please do not edit your own posts after someone has responded to them, and be very careful not to remove anyone else's posts! I have restored the post that DoubleGrazing responded to, as well as DoubleGrazing's post. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Bonadea sorry about making those edits. I just saw your comments on the draft, and I made the changes you asked for. Since you mentioned the previous edits asked by @Cabrils, you should know that the subject has made it twice in the music industry: 1st as a child celebrity, and her success as such in Argentina and Uruguay is well documented online, and in the wiki draft. 2nd, she succeeded as a christian artist, being nominated to the Latin Grammy, touring internationally, and having a huge following on social media and music streaming platforms. There are very few solo female artists in the christian music industry that have numbers comparable to hers, including English and Portuguese speaking artists. I don't know why you all insist in her not being notable... I wonder if has something to do with her being hispanic and female... maybe if she was a white male dude no one would oppose her article being on wikipedia... Piano123piano (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piano123piano accusing editors of bias will get your nowhere. Keep in mind editors here are from around the world and/or have interest in various global topics. No one is insisting Athenas is not notable. It was declined once, as the sources at that time did not demonstrate notability but could be resubmitted with improvement, rather than rejected, meaning the subject has truly been deemed not notable therefore will no longer be considered S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piano123piano I second the comment by @S0091. As the reviewer who declined to accept the draft, I would encourage you to absorb my lengthy, and I think helpful and constructive comment I posted on the draft, in which I conclude "If you feel you can meet these requirements then resubmit the page and ping me and I would be happy to reassess". I remain happy to assess a revised draft. Cabrils (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cabrils, I apologize if my words were poorly chosen. It’s just I’m a big fan of Athenas’ music, and too often I’ve seen her being marginalized and not being recognized for her outstanding work, only because she doesn’t fit the “pop star” stereotype of today - in spite of having much better statistics and awards than more “established” singers of today in Latin America.
anyway, I’ve carefully read your comments and tried my best to modify the draft. I kindly ask you to review it again and let me know if it’s ok or if there is anything else I should make better. Piano123piano (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piano123piano: I understand. In reality, Wikipedia is governed by guidelines which by far most experienced editors abide, whereby personal knowledge of the subject of a draft page is probably rare and effectively irrelevant. A poorly drafted page of a notorious subject is just as likely to be rejected.
I've reassessed the draft and I think that meets the submission requirements. Bare in mind that Wikipedia is open source and the page is perpetually open to amendments. I would encourage you to create a User Page if you intend to continue editing here as it will make it much more efficient to communicate with others and have them communicate with you. All the best. Cabrils (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @Cabrils! I really appreciate that. I have just one more question: this English article you just approved is the equivalent of Athenas’ already existing Spanish article. how can those two articles get linked? So that each one becomes as an available language for the other (here’s the link to it https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenas_(cantante)) Piano123piano (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, I'm not sure. Maybe post that on the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 19 May 2023 review of submission by GLB1938

hello, i submitted an article on behalf of my boss but it was denied. how do i get it approved. i dont understand these instructions. GLB1938 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GLB1938 Please read WP:BOSS and have your boss read it too. You will need to change your username, as you can't use his name and year as your name, go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest. You will also need to make the terms of use required paid editing disclosure. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about someone and their accomplishments, it is a place to 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? 331dot (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GLB1938, your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced, which is a policy violation. In its current form, it fails Verifiability, which is a core content policy. An acceptable Wikipedia biography of Ball would summarize the significant coverage that reliable sources that are entirely independent of Ball devote to him. Wikipedia has negligible interest in what Ball says about himself. You should read and study Your first article and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I went back and changed the user name. I also am trying to cite/reference but I do not see how to link this. please help. is there a simple step by step? AMW01091 (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: AMW01091: I see that, perhaps due to your conflict of interest, you omit any mention of the scandals associated with the subject that are mentioned by several reliable news websites that are found after just a few seconds searching his name online. Sources, stating both the good and the bad, need to be added to all information that could be questioned, in order to verify the statements are backed up by reliable sources. Also see WP:CITE and after that WP:CIT to see how to make inline citations of the sources you choose to use. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
again thank you, and no not due to any conflict of interest I wasn't trying to omit any facts. I'm only trying to understand how to submit an article. I have not summited an article before so I have many questions. I am only trying to submit a small summary of who this person is, not his life story. Do I then not need to mention any of the companies that he worked with/for? Just looking for help. Thanks. AMW01091 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:03, 19 May 2023 review of submission by Petjayso

The reason my article was recently declined is that the subject shows a "lack of notability" like, why? Her predecessor has an article and so did the dude before her. Andddd the lady before him. WHY? If she is famous because of an office she is holding, and her predecessors had articles, then why is she being declined? Petjayso (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petjayso, this person is probably notable but you have failed to show it. High quality reference are like gold (or gemstones for Idaho topics) on Wikipedia, and low quality sources are like sand or gravel that irritate reviewers. What is required are references to reliable published sources entirely independent of Critchfield that devote significant coverage to her. Tom Luna has 35 references that appear to be mostly of high quality. Sherri Ybarra has 15 good references. Your draft has six references, only one of which appears to be of halfway decent quality. So, if you build your draft by summarizing references of the quality of those in the Luna article, then your draft will be accepted, and you will avoid writing something silly in the lead like She served as the Communications Specialist for the Cassia County school district when it is clear that this job has nothing to do with her notability, which derives entirely from the statewide elected office that she won. Focus on what is important, not on trivialities. Cullen328 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh ok Petjayso (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 20

02:43, 20 May 2023 review of submission by RDSJ2

Regarding the requirements for a "notable" designation, are there examples for scholarly journals that I could take a look at? Thank you. RDSJ2 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get how it is not notable either Petjayso (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RDSJ2, please read Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). For examples, take a look at Category:Academic journals and its various subcategories. Pay special attention to the articles with a higher assessment. Do not model your work on articles rated "stub" or "start" Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Appreciate it. RDSJ2 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:55:11, 20 May 2023 review of draft by 146.168.109.47


Atom Hovhanesyan chosen shorter version from "Hovhannisyan" when immigrated to USA July,1997, and naturalized as US citizen in 2003. 20 years of his short life he lived and worked in USA. Therefore He is American artist ,born in Armenia.

146.168.109.47 (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your entirely unreferenced and exceptionally brief draft fails to make the case that this artist is notable. It lacks complete sentences. This draft is nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. Read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:28, 20 May 2023 review of submission by 1.47.16.104

The topic is clearly notable as a mythological figure and deity; the other one is Draft:List of media adaptations of the Investiture of the Gods (See, for example, List of media adaptations of the Legend of the White Snake and List of media adaptations of Journey to the West), but they have been under review for too long. I kindly request that you review these articles as soon as possible. Btw, pls add Italic on List of media adaptations of the ''Investiture of the Gods'' >>> Investiture of the Gods. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of your draft states that this person actually existed and then states in Wikipedia's voice that one of this person's children was killed by a thousand-year-old vixen spirit who possessed her body before becoming the favourite concubine of King Zhou.. That is inane drivel that will never be accepted in this encyclopedia. You state here at this help desk that this is a "mythological figure" but the lead section of your draft does not say that. Your draft will not be accepted "as soon as possible" because your draft in its current form is exceptionally misleading. You must clearly separate fantasy from reality. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so pity you that you don't have much knowledge about Chinese folk religion. So RIP. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have written over 200 articles on Chinese folk characters using Draft, and I have never received such a rude response showing such a lack of knowledge on Chinese folklore like the one you provided above. Chinese folk religion is characterized by the evolution of oral legends and the blending of reality and mythology. It is a traditional cultural belief that is unique to China and India and has no parallel in the Western ones. Despite not existing in the real world, characters such as Sun Wukong are worshiped as deities, with over 50 temples dedicated to him. To deepen your understanding of Chinese mythology, it is recommended to research papers and study Chinese oral and folk traditions. However, I fixed as you suggested. Thank you. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You came here asking for advice, anonymous IP editor, and I gave you an honest critique of the lead section of your draft. You improved your draft in response to my observations. So far, so good. But then you decided to insult me, the person who gave you the advice you asked for, and then when other people commented, you argued with them and insulted them, and then strayed into administrative dictatorship fantasy land. If you despise Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, then you are perfectly free to contribute to other websites with lower standards instead. But if you want to contribute to this top ten worldwide website, you need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and stop insulting and arguing with your colleagues. That is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, IP, it is the reviewers, not you, who determine whether a subject is notable or not, and whether any such notability is born out by the referencing. That is largely the point of AfC.
Secondly, stating that your drafts "have been under review for too long" is both incorrect and unreasonable, given that they were submitted only 2-3 days ago. We do have other drafts to review, as well, not just yours – over 4,000 of them, in fact. If yours are still awaiting review in three months' time, then you may have a point.
Finally, why not register for an ACCOUNT, so you can publish your articles without going through AfC, as you're clearly finding this process frustrating? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I don't want to use my account to argue with rude editors and someone who lacks intelligence. If I say something wrong, they might very mean to me and get my account banned. Using an account does not feel like freedom, which is why I prefer not to use it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and under dictatorship of Admin panel. Well, You said that "it is the reviewers, not you". But does that mean I cannot speak to reviewers who make judgments without proper knowledge in a field they are not experts in? Shouldn't I have the right to criticize or point out any flaws in their judgments? I'm a senior scholar of Chinese mythology at Chulalongkorn University. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then; if you prefer to edit from IP, that's your call, but you're then kind of stuck with us here at AfC. In which case, you may want to avoid the accusations and unreasonable demands, because they won't get your drafts reviewed any faster. Good day, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are free to criticise and debate, but this can and should be done in a constructive spirit. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and adversarial approaches are not conducive to collaboration, while personal attacks and insults are absolutely unacceptable.
As for whether you are a "senior scholar" (for which we, of course, have only your word), this is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on the draft review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it seems like you're getting it backwards. I have no intention of personally attacking anyone, but it appears that you and your colleague are actually insulting me. It would be best if you refrain from displaying your authority or exerting your power on Wikipedia. AfC reviewers are not more than nothing minors. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would you call your remarks about "rude editors and someone who lacks intelligence", if not personal attacks?
And please point to where exactly I insulted you. I'll wait. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please stop editing earlier comments. The way discussion threads work is, you add each new comment after the previous one, and leave the earlier comments alone.
And with that, I'm done with this discussion. Bye, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, your statement 'IP, it is the reviewers, not you, who determine whether a subject is notable or not' appears to assert your power. Secondly, your suggestion of 'why not register for an ACCOUNT' feels like pressure to me. Finally, your comment about my status as a 'senior scholar' and the fact that 'we, of course, have only your word,' seems like a challenge to my credibility. Regardless of your intentions, it is unacceptable to insult someone's educational background or opinions. Such behavior is considered very rude in Southeast Asian tradition. For PA, No, referring to someone who exhibits rude or unacceptable behavior as 'rude editors' is not a personal attack. If not that, then how else would you refer to them? For instance, would 'poor editors' be a more appropriate term?. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a simple statement of fact that we only have your word on your background and qualifications. No one said that they disbelieve you. If you find this offensive, there's not much we can do about it. The same goes for if you feel "pressured" by a simple question about using an account. No one is "asserting power"- simply stating the role of AFC reviewers. It would be like saying you are "asserting power" by telling us your qualifications. In fact, your whole line of discussion seems to be accusing us of that which you are doing.
    Again, if you find this process frustrating, there is a way to avoid it, but you've declined it, so you are stuck with us. Please assume good faith that we are here to help you. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you're saying that I'm 'asserting power' by sharing my qualifications. Please be aware of what we're discussing. We're currently discussing Chinese folk religion, and I simply wanted to state that it's my field of research. I never claimed to be a professor or an authority figure. I don't care whether or not you trust me, as the role of a scholar is not of great importance. Why are you taking this so seriously? I have the right to defend those who criticize Chinese folk religion without knowing anything about it. You should stop disrespecting on the folk religion, as it feels like a personal challenge to me. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you seem to be taking everything that people say personally, I too am going to withdraw from this discussion. I would suggest that you change your approach. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've grown increasingly frustrated with creating articles about Chinese traditions on the Western dominated Wikipedia. This is why I've been away from my account for a long time. It seems that there is a stubborn refusal to investigate topics that are not well-understood. The only actions taken seem to be "deleting" and "denying". It's disheartening to see that native voices are not being heard. That's all. Bye 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You way wish to consider editing a Wikipedia version in a Chinese language which is more likely to have Chinese editors. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia. Also, it is not required that editors be knowledgable in a topic area in order to participate in editing it, mainly because Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing reliable sources. Okay, I'm really finished now. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, as it was previously stated that 'Wikipedia is a collaborative effort,' and then you have also mentioned that 'it is not necessary for editors to be knowledgeable in a specific topic area to contribute to it.' Does this mean that Wikipedia does not value experts???? However, if you need to verify sources in the Thai language, it is crucial to seek the assistance of native editors. Please do not advise others that English Wikipedia does not require volunteers from other language Wikipedias, as it may be perceived as an arrogant attitude. Thanks. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't anything close to what I said. Please see WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have already memorized all of Wikipedia's policies and essays like drinking water three years ago. I did this because many experienced editors tend to bully those who are not familiar with the policies. I am now like a tiger, not a cat. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... I have decided to leave this article as it is for further review. I strongly believe that the topic is clearly notable, as he holds the dual roles of a court minister and a deity, which beyond the notability criteria. However, if the article is rejected, I'm prepared to discuss the matter with the reviewer who rejected it and file a complaint with the ANI. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there are no notability guidelines for a mythological "court minister and a deity", and your combative attitude here will not help you get the article accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: Of course, this means that you may need to update your knowledge on Wikipedia. First, it is important to understand the difference between a biography of a living person and a non-BLP issue. A deity is beyond notable, and a court ministers are automatically considered notable per WP:NPOL. A royal court is a joke to you??? See other articles in the same category in AfD for reference. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait!!! I have created over 500 articles in total during my time on Wikipedia. When I used an IP, I created almost 200 articles, and none of them were deleted or rejected. I mainly focus on my area of expertise and have created over 500 articles. How about you? Only have propaganda of the edior Onel?? 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting close to a block, I suggest that you either move on from this or change your approach. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not do nothing wrong and insult to other. Blocking me, an innocent person, is causing the truth to disappear from Wikipedia. Btw, It is still my philosophy that over past century royalty who are documented by one reliable source are notable. I would also add that insisting on multiple independent sources for historical figures from Southeast Asia or Africa may maintain systemic bias. by Robert McClenon said at once. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are here to post "the truth", you are operating under a misunderstanding. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point out any mistakes I've made? I'm here to enlighten those who refuse to acknowledge the significance of historical figures from over a thousand years ago. This is a different issue bcs there are no notability guidelines for them, as they are already notable due to their historical importance. They lived in ancient times, not in the Joe Biden's era. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reasonably confident that WP:NPOL does NOT include mythological/fictional characters from a book. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking? He is not a fictional one, but a noble during Shang dynasty. Well, he had a historical tomb and is worshipped as a deity in Taiwan, which goes beyond our notability criteria. How much more evidence do you need? 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If you don't mind, let's discuss this on the article's talk page instead of here. I am willing to devote my time to defending the Shang dynasty figures from your insults directed at them. Or see you at ANI when refuse notability. For now, let me retire here. Thanks 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "beyond the notability criteria". 331dot (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are right! so r u happy? Wiki admin always right! However... AfD will decide not you. As you mentioned earlier, "Okay, I'm really finished now. Good day to you." Why are you still continuing the conversation here after I have withdrawn from the discussion? Please stay cool and keep your words while editing. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:15, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Coderc Codes 77

Hi there! I am writing about a web browser called Arc (arc.net), as I realised there was not a wikipedia article for that. Arc Web Browser is a rather new browser, and thus there is not much information readily available. Therefore, I could not put many citations for my wikipedia article, and therefore it was rejected. Any tips for cases like this, and how can I make it in an even more neutral point-of-view? Thanks.

(And yes, Arc Web Browser is a fairly well-known browser with thousands of users with many big tech companies investing in it.) Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coderc Codes 77 If as you say there "is not much information readily available" in independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this browser, it would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so does this mean that it will not be possible to make that article at this time? That's sad, but alright. Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does not merit an article at this time. That does not mean forever, just not now. Once the browser becomes better known and independent sources start to write about it and its significance, that will change later. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources have actually written about it, but after checking the information, I realised that it is not true, which is why I worry when putting the citations in and therefore to not cite, as there is not really any actual information given from the official website. For example, a blog said that it was released in 2022. There was no official source that said when the first build was released(and I try not to use official sources since it may be abit bias), but digging into the twitter archive of @browsercompany showed me that it was actually released in 2021, as there was evidence that they had a public build before 2022. Does this mean that I can cite the independent sources, or should I just wait until it gets more significant and the company actually puts actual information out? Thanks. Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:31, 20 May 2023 review of draft by Barshuts


Having trouble with vetting the articles references as i cannot find for the life of me the errors in question before i can submit the page

Cite error group ref

Probably something really simple, but still learning!

BRSHTS 12:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Barshuts: in the election results table, you're invoking a named reference 'turnout' (in <ref group="note" name="turnout"/>) but this isn't defined anywhere, meaning none of the existing ref tags is given the name 'turnout'. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Resolved BRSHTS 10:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barshuts (talk • contribs)

13:42, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Naadis

please help too approve biography Naadis (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naadis: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:14, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Ahron218

I want to delete my account. Ahron218 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahron218: as explained at WP:Username_policy#Deleting_and_merging_accounts, it isn't possible to delete / close down accounts, but you may request a courtesy vanishing if you wish. Alternatively you can just stop using your account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Farzan77far

I mention some reference but still the submission not accept. It just about the person who plays volleyball. The reason that not accept is commented that "Just passing mentions of being in a team is not notable, the team being a junior one even less". please help me. Farzan77far (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Farzan77far you only cite one source and that source appears to be some kind of forum or blog, which is not a reliable source. In order to meet the notability criteria, you need multiple reliable sources that have written about him in-depth, such as reputable newspapers, magazines or the like. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 20 May 2023 review of submission by 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21

Why can't this be submitted? I don't fully understand. 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it was successfully submitted but not accepted because neither of the sources are reliable and/or independent. What Brightonthatbeat says about himself matters not. What is needed are secondary reliable sources that have written about him in-depth. S0091 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
a lot of the information that is provided are from the sources that were given. so i guess i don't know what else to put when there isnt a lot about my client. What is it thats needed? More from someone elses point of view? 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

03:43, 21 May 2023 review of submission by 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21

Whats wrong in here, and why does it keep getting denied? Whats the problem 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this draft was declined and then rejected is that there is no evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't start multiple threads, you can just continue in the one already started. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:11, 21 May 2023 review of submission by 94.188.182.25

hey! This cannot be merged to the Raid: Shadow Legends page, since this page is about a video game. And the current article that we would like to publish is TV Series. 

94.188.182.25 (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, fine; the reviewer was merely suggesting that since this doesn't seem notable in its own right, it could be included in the game article. Add sources that demonstrate notability according to the WP:GNG standard, and then (and only then) resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:16, 21 May 2023 review of draft by Mickey Singh Narula


Mickey Singh Narula (talk) 07:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Singh Narula You don't ask a question for us to help you with, and your sandbox only has the base article template without any text from you. 331dot (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 21 May 2023 review of submission by StriveMe

We are a well known magazine in the middle east , this is not a spam account for promotional purposes , yet we need to be on wikipedia like all magazines StriveMe (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StriveMe: firstly, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further; moreover, it is promotional, and hence awaiting speedy deletion.
Secondly, while you may feel that you "need to be on wikipedia", we have policies and guidelines that govern inclusion, and the subject's desire doesn't feature on any of them. There may one day be an article on your magazine, but only if it can be shown to be notable, which based on this draft isn't the case. And even then, you shouldn't really be writing that article.
...which brings me to my 'thirdly': you have an obvious conflict of interest (COI) and you are likely editing for pay or other compensation, and you must disclose that as your very next edit. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and then there's that. (Blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 21 May 2023 review of submission by Mathews Kantchembere

to publish my post 

Mathews Kantchembere (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathews Kantchembere: oh yes, I remember this. :)) I just looked at it quickly and thought it was a book outline, so marked it as promotional (sorry!). Luckily the attending admin sensibly declined my speedy deletion request. Anyway, we already have an article on World War II, so feel free to improve that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 21 May 2023 review of submission by 2605:BA00:4138:445:1974:CACD:E09D:A640

I, sorry 2605:BA00:4138:445:1974:CACD:E09D:A640 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected (and you probably know why) and therefore won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:23, 21 May 2023 review of submission by Adamozito

Why is rejected? It's a type of machine present in almost all wood boards plants as the reference shows. Adamo Zito 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adamozito As stated in the rejection notice, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". The draft does little more than document the existence of the topic, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. This is why it was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


May 22

01:01, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Rapmarocedit

Hi all, How To move drave intro page ? Rapmarocedit (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@rapmarocedit: don't. the draft been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 01:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:12, 22 May 2023 review of submission by BVECJordan

Hi I have created a page new called patabari Fv everything was done as reliable sources citations from various website But it recently moved to draft What is the reason I want to know about it And how to resubmit it Please tell me anyone the solution BVECJordan (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BVECJordan: not that this is strictly speaking an AfC matter, but – the reason why this article was draftified is given in the move notice posted on your talk page (which you have clearly seen, as you have responded to it), namely that the article did not demonstrate the notability of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sir
Thanks a lot BVECJordan (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:20, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Susanta108

What am I doing wrong with the article? Susanta108 (talk) 07:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Susanta108: did you read the decline notices and comments? The reviewer is saying the sources don't show that the subject is notable per WP:ORGCRIT. There are several other issues with it, as well, but lack of apparent notability is the main thing keeping it from being accepted.
You should also please respond to the COI query posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:28, 22 May 2023 review of submission by 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:5D49:1A4D:7F6E:EC8D

my article about kogama was declined.2404:4402:23F7:2B00:5D49:1A4D:7F6E:EC8D (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, the only content was "KOGAMA IS A COMPANY FOUNDED IN 2011 IT IS AN AMAZING WEBSITE" which reads nothing like a potential encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Whitelove

Hi, What kind of things do I need to add this page? I wanted to add news souse of a charity concert, but the news souse was not on the web. Thank you. Whitelove (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitelove: you need to add sources which show that this organisation is notable per WP:GNG. Currently you have two primary sources, one that doesn't support anything in the draft, and two instances of the same news report about a minor incident, none of which contribute towards notability in the slightest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Kuldeep Kumar Actor

I need assistance in Article creation. I wrote the entire content in word.

Looking forward for your support. Kuldeep Kumar Actor (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuldeep Kumar Actor: if you mean Draft:Kuldeep Kumar, then that draft has been deleted for being both promotional and a likely copyright violation.
In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, for all the reasons enumerated at WP:AUTOBIO.
In view of all that, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kuldeep Kumar Actor This isn't a place for you to tell about yourself and your career- please do that on social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Dani Playà

I don't understand why this draft page it's not ok.

i don`t see the diferencies with this other page. List of tango music labels And that other seems be ok Dani Playà (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Playà I've fixed your link, we don't need the whole url. Beware in citing other similar articles with regards to yours, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. In this case, I think that is correct. The tango music is is poorly sourced and has few links to other Wikipedia articles. I might suggest that you first discuss the need of such a list at Talk:Record label and see if it could be incorporated into an existing article before attempting to create a new one. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Ithau23

Hello, Need assistance on the article 
Ithau23 (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ithau23: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 22 May 2023 review of submission by WesJoiner

My article was declined, with following statements:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

However, the inline citations are all from external reputable sources (regional, national and international publications). Perhaps the tone of the article was not considered neutral due to the use of affirmative adjectives, thus the reviewer did not actually view the citations.

The references to the artists work has thus been neutralized; presented more objectively. However all citations remain the same as they are all legitimate and DO NOT come from the artist, but DO INDEED come from external sources.

Thank you for your consideration. 

WesJoiner (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WesJoiner The first sentence of your draft is highly promotional. Please read WP:NPOV; articles must be written very matter of factly, very dry, with no embellishment. "Sorg & Napoleon Maddox are a musical duo", for example. It's also not clear to me how they pass WP:BAND. Do you have an association with this duo? 331dot (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply 331dot
Is it more appropriate if I say, "Sorg & Napoleon Maddox are a Hip-hop Electro duet" and eliminate "Sorg & Napoleon Maddox are a musical duo that blends electronic beats with live vocal performance." ?
I've changed that, simplified the article and made the overall tone more "matter of fact".
I've also seen flags on the draft RE: the external links but none of the links lead to the pages controlled or created by the artists in the article so I don't understand. Please explain.
Thank you
WJ WesJoiner (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 22 May 2023 review of submission by HMGelani

I had submitted a detailed draft 2 months ago and I got a notification this week that it has been declined because the subject if this article already exists though that article was directly created a week ago i.e. almost two months after my submission. HMGelani (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HMGelani Submitting a draft about a topic does not mean that other users are barred from creating an article about the topic directly. You are welcome to edit that article. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt response. I just wanted to clarify the point that a detailed draft submitted for review can be declined for the reason that later same subject article was directly created by someone, instead of helping improve that draft or reviewing it. HMGelani (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm not sure what it is that you are asking for. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article already created in main space Sajjad Jani is likely to be deleted as it is VERY poorly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read in a recent comment by a reviewer here that a draft was declined because an older draft with same subject was under review, while in my case my draft was declined because someone directly made an article with same subject, after my submission. And as per your observation, that article might get deleted so please guide that what should I do now ? HMGelani (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HMGelani: depends at least partly on whether it is more important for you to have an article on this subject published, or to have an article on this subject created by you published? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had researched on the subject and waited for review, in order to have the article published but I am happy to contribute in any way. HMGelani (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HMGelani: okay, in that case I would suggest that you incorporate the salient points and relevant sources from your draft into the published article, to improve and hopefully save it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Priydarshini.R.mujagond

why this page got rejected and what to add in this page 

Priydarshini.R.mujagond (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Priydarshini.R.mujagond: it didn't get rejected; I declined it, on the basis that another draft on the same topic is already being reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:15, 22 May 2023 review of draft by BEB8299


Hello, I am trying to create a page for the AWA wiffle ball league. It looks like it got taken down and I am trying to figure out how to improve it to meet your expectations. I started by using only reliable secondary sources. For the rules, however, I used the actual website as it was the only place for primary information on that matter. Please let me know what else I can do!

BEB8299 (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BEB8299: of the four sources cited, the first only makes a passing mention, the second is a close primary source, and although I cannot access the other two, even if they both provided significant coverage of the subject (AWA Wiffle Ball, specifically), they wouldn't be enough to establish notability, especially if, as you say, the latter one is only a local source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 22 May 2023 review of submission by Betarhobeta

My page has been declined for lack of secondary sources. My sources are proved by links to respected research library catalogs. Like many women artists, Ray did not receive full recognition during her life. Her work is now being recognized and has recently been added to the collections of UCSD Geisel Special collections, The Bancroft Library ad UCBerkeley and the Huntington Library. Chapman University also holds 24 of her paintings. This is significant recognition from secondary sources. Betarhobeta (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Betarhobeta I am not sure what links to which you are referring but the references are largely her publications which are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. What is needed is in-depth coverage about her by secondary independent reliable sources. If some of her works are now receiving critical attention, such as reviews or other analysis, I actually suggest articles about those works first before attempting an article about her. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ray's work is collected by respected institutions such as the Huntington Library. Here is one example of her work on their research archive.
https://search-library.ucsd.edu/discovery/fulldisplay?context=L&vid=01UCS_SDI:UCSD&search_scope=ArticlesBooksEtc&tab=ArticleBooksEtc&docid=alma991023606067806535
Her work is also in Chapman University's eMuseum and is part of the Escalate collection of Public Art https://chapman.emuseum.com/people/1433/inna-ray
Footnote # 8 shows that her Master's Thesis on theology was published as an issue of the Women in Religion of the Berkeley Graduate Theological Union. Betarhobeta (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Betarhobeta there is no footnote #8 in the References section. Hmm...I suggest posting a note at WT:WikiProject Women in Red to seek assistance which is very active project with experienced (and new) editors dedicated to covering women. S0091 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, it is footnote #6. thank you for the Women in Red contact I will pursue. Betarhobeta (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Betarhobeta fyi, I redirected Draft:Inna Ray to Draft:Inna Jane Ray as there should not be multiple drafts about the same subject. The title can be changed if the draft is accepted. S0091 (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am not sure how I managed to create two drafts. It was not my intent.
Inna Jane Ray is the correct title Betarhobeta (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:08, 22 May 2023 review of submission by HiDot94

Trying to get this draft page deleted so the submission button can comeback when we have better sources but the deletion keeps getting blocked? HiDot94 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HiDot94 since you were not the draft's creator, you cannot request it be deleted so another editor removed the deletion request. Why do you want it be deleted? S0091 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft will be automatically marked for deletion after six months of no edits. If you obtain appropriate sources in that time, you may ask the reviewer to reconsider. There is no need to request deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:09, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Rapmarocedit

Hi, I had submitted a detailed draft, please how to move drave intro page ? Rapmarocedit (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:50, 23 May 2023 review of draft by DoOnlyGoodEveryday

Being new to the Wikipedia community, I would greatly value your input and guidance on whether the article meets the necessary standards for submission. Your expertise and experience would be immensely helpful in improving the article and ensuring its suitability for publication.

DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoOnlyGoodEveryday: I'm afraid the draft could not be accepted, as it's currently written. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, but none of the three sources cited meets this standard.
Also, the last three sections of the draft are entirely unreferenced, raising the question where is all that information coming from? Please note that everything you write must be verifiable from reliable published sources – in fact, what you write should only really be a summary (in your own words) of what such sources have said. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Maormer

Hello. The article I proposed was rejected for the third time. Last time, the reason for the refusal was the lack of reliable sources, and from the discussion with the moderators, I determined which source was in doubt, and replaced it with a more reliable one. To all the others (as far as I understand) there are no complaints. I would like to clarify what exactly I am doing wrong, and whether it makes sense to edit the article or it is better to abandon it. If some sources are in doubt, I can replace them, if some facts seem inappropriate, I will try to remove them. Thank you in advance for your help Maormer (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1156542584"