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 Alightjones (talk | contribs) at 18:55, 2 July 2019. 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


June 26

00:18:01, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Stanford1993

{{SAFESUBST:Void| 00:18:01, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Stanford1993


Hello, I think I am auto-confirmed user but it looks like I used AOC for this article, and it will take up to 8 weeks for review. I could not find where to create an article as an auto-confirmed contributor. Do I need to redo the article as an auto-confirmed contributor, and if so, would it be possible to direct me to the way to create a new article in that way? Thank you very much. Stanford1993 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford1993 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanford1993: You are not autoconfirmed, you have only made 9 edits (you need 10). JTP (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:08, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Desantisg


Requesting further clarity as to why my draft was rejected. It is similar to other companies. Contains sources from National Media in Canada such as the Financial Post, which is Canada's version of Wall Street Journal. The article attempts to share information about an emerging technology business in Canada that has been recognized and is growing. Would love to better understand how other businesses get featured. Thanks!

Desantisg (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desantisg. The Financial Post is a decent start, but at present the company is not notable. Most business aren't. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. Revisit the topic in a few years when it is no longer "emerging". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:58, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Pgk707


Hi, I don't understand why this article is rejected. In a previous message I got, missing references was a reason. There are now quite some references as requested. Any help and recommendation would be highly appreciated.

Pgk707 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk707 It got rejected because there is another draft at Draft:ERCIM for the same subject. Your best bet would to be to combine the two and then submit Draft:ERCIM when you are finished. Whispering(t) 23:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:17, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Ba330

First off, thank you for reviewing my article. I would greatly appreciate feedback to help create a very simple, easy to read article on RAYMUNDO. Ba330 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:50:12, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Alwayswriteskr


Alwayswriteskr (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayswriteskr: - additional sources are needed which meet the in-depth/independent/reliable/secondary requirements. It's also really helpful if you can fuller refs (so they don't just appear as numbers) - Referencing for beginners can show you how :) Nosebagbear (talk)

14:30:46, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Amyefoster82

I have taken out the quotes. I assume they are what was perceived as advocacy. Please resubmit for review. Amyefoster82 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:42, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Wordcobbler


Wordcobbler (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This is in answer to the two messages about my article submission. To Theroadislong: I am in no one's employ, and I have no conflicts of interest. Period. To Curb Save Charmer: I don't understand why you say there are no sources attached to the reviews of my books. The reliable, independent sources, from The New York Times to Scientific American, Los Angeles Times, Publishers Weekly, etc., are all listed plainly following the review excerpts. None is from a dust jacket. Did you not see that? As to awards and being written about, there are many WP articles that violate that criterion. To cite only two: George Taber, whose notability is based on a four-paragraph Time article that led to a wine tasting. Nothing written about him, no awards. Charles Trueheart, who has had a nice career, but has received no awards or notices and no reviews of his one published book. How do you justify rejecting my article while approving theirs?Wordcobbler (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordcobbler:. If you are claiming to be Joseph Harriss ("reviews of my books") and to have no conflict of interest ("I have no conflicts of interest. Period."), then you don't grasp what a conflict of interest is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:13, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Parth239


Greetings!

I'm Parth Bhatt, a high school student and I have undertaken over 250 courses by organisations like United Nations, United States Institute of Peace and Peace Operations Training Institute, USA. I have several achievements of national and international level.

I wanted to have a wikipedia page on me so that people and children of my age group can get to know about me and get in contact with me for help in completing courses. I want the youth to be aware of the current global issues as they are the future. As a child, I realised that I need to take part in empowering others in order to make this world a better pace to live. I did not want to be the one who focuses only on academics but a person with practical knowledge and experience.

Most of my references and citations are offline. Can anyone please help me in making the article.

Thanking you with kind regards, Parth Bhatt

Parth239 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:00, 26 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A9AD:5A8:E3BE:41E7

why is this taking so long, the movie comes out in 1 month

2600:1700:93B0:1350:A9AD:5A8:E3BE:41E7 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:53, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Floydhome

I'm not sure that I understand why our page was rejected. can you please provide more information? Floydhome (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is written as an advert, the topic is not notable. The only source provided is an original source made by the company subject. Articles require multiple independent and reliable sources for approval and move to main-space and Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only. You have a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:32, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet


I've added a few more secondary sources, let me know how it looks. Thanks.

Swampcygnet (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:24:48, 26 June 2019 review of draft by 50.236.252.20

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

The draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Touchstone_(software) has been completely reworked and new sources brought in to validate the legitimacy of its claim to Wikipedia-worthiness. However, the newest draft has been again denied due to issues with "reliable sources". Can someone please point out which sources referenced in the draft are unreliable? Thank you. 50.236.252.20 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told before "Those sources that arguably are independent do not mention Touchstone at all. Those that mention Touchstone are all written by AIR. Wikipedia requires secondary sources, not just what a company says about its own product." Please also read WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

These are not written by AIR and are not quoting AIR. They list information about the product that came from, one presumes, the investigations of the writer:
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/risk/downloads/crs-geac-multiline-data-schema-consultation-document-v0.1.pdf
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/08/17/498511.htm


While these quote someone from AIR, they also include their own research:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/08/17/498511.htm
https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/CAT/2014/P2WAITEPresentation.pdf


Furthermore, how are these last two not reliable sources? Are the editors of Wikipedia suggesting that material from the Insurance Journal doesn't make for reliable source material, even though Insurance Journal is a distinguished publication in the insurance industry and its material is already used as sources on other Wikipedia entries, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Travelers_Companies? And are the editors of Wikipedia suggesting that material from the Actuaries Institute doesn't make for reliable source material, even though it is THE professional body for actuaries in Australia and its material is already used as sources on other Wikipedia entries, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss, and even has its own Wikipedia entry, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuaries_Institute? Please be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.236.252.20 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other crap exists the /Actuaries Institute is a blatant advert and copyright violation I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:44, 26 June 2019 review of draft by AlpacaWiki


User:GSS moved the article to draft space for lack of citations from reliable, independent sources (and/or because he accused me of being a paid writer ?!?). I answered here, but didn't receive a reply from him since.

I agree that the Functionality section of the article was a bit low on sources/citations. This was because the information was gathered from the website and documentation, which I verified by actually using the software. I now added references to the website where I felt it was necessary. I was just wondering what the typical way of handling such situation is, because I checked various other Wikipedia articles of open-source software and it seems to be similar with some of them.

Thanks for taking time to review and help.

AlpacaWiki (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlpacaWiki I took a gander through your sources all of them seem to be primary sources. Which are great for proving something exists however they aren't all that great at proving how something is significant enough for inclusion here at Wikipedia. For that you need secondary sources, which are good at showing why something should be included here on Wikipedia. Whispering(t) 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

00:33:23, 27 June 2019 review of submission by 148.75.165.78


Found and referenced additional significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

148.75.165.78 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@148.75.165.78: - hi there, as this was, it should have been declined, not by rejected by your reviewer.
In any case, I've reviewed it again and passed it - very impressive to find reviews that good for a film over a century old! Nosebagbear (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:55:14, 27 June 2019 review of draft by Joshua at mixi Inc


Hi there! I requested the creation of a COI article to be made in my stead, but it was declined because there were insufficient reliable sources, and also for the reason that it read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

We are now attempting another request on the Japanese Wikipedia, hoping that we can provide more reliable sources in Japanese. However, we are unsure if the addition of links to the app's awards will help increase the number or reliable resources, or instead make it read more like an advertisement. I would be very grateful if you could give me your opinion as an experienced editor!

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your reply. Joshua @ mixi

Joshua at mixi Inc (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua at mixi Inc if you can find good sources in Japanese, or any other language, you can cite them here too. The English Wikipedia accepts sources in any language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:21, 27 June 2019 review of submission by PilotSuggs

The article has been updated to reflect the recent extreme adventure that Paul Suggitt has completed, a first on the actual route he took. It also draws note on the firsts he has completed over the last few years that are documented in the media. Any help / tweaks to get this published will be so gratefully received.

PilotSuggs (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PilotSuggs, the draft currently relies almost entirely on local sources. If you can reference good sources from outside the Hartlepool area it might improve the chance of acceptance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:35, 27 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:B5F7:9119:E9C9:92FB

so a poster surfaced on the web and it could mean that Ash will be in Galar and will travel with Gloria but there was no confirmation from ShoPro or TV Tokyo.

2600:1700:93B0:1350:B5F7:9119:E9C9:92FB (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:59, 27 June 2019 review of draft by PamMusic


Thank you for the initial review. The reviewer's comment was to add headings. Is this all I need to do? Is there also a problem with essay vs encyclopedic tone, as described in the introductory text?

I realize I still have some more work to do, including an external link to the ensemble's website and adding links for text items that refer to entities with their own Wikipedia articles.

PamMusic (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:14, 27 June 2019 review of draft by Coffeeandsmoke


Hi! I recently submitted an article for re-review Draft:Queens Night Market. I'd love to add some pictures, assuming the article is reviewed and ultimately accepted. Should I wait until a decision is made in order to upload pictures? Also, since I have a COI, are there special guidelines I should follow with respect to which images I submit for the article? I suppose the pictures should also somehow be neutral in tone, but not sure how to accomplish that as easily with pictures. Would love to get your advice. Thanks! Coffeeandsmoke (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandsmoke (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coffeeandsmoke. There's no rush, the presence or absence of pictures will have no effect on whether the draft is accepted. For an article of this length, a single image would be enough, and any more would be excessive with the current text. But you may upload more than you can display immediately, in the expectation that the article will eventually grow and be able to accommodate more images. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images gives some pointers.
With respect to COI, let other editors choose which image to use from among those uploaded. There are many excellent photographers in New York who will donate images. So consider what you can contribute that would be unique. That might be historical photos, photos of non-public parts of the facility, or photos for which you had to make special arrangements (a view of the market from a private area of an adjacent building, for example). --Worldbruce (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:46, 27 June 2019 review of draft by WillRowActor


Hi, I received an email that an edit had occurred. I am unsure what the edit was or how it aleffexts my pqge? Will Rowlands 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@WillRowActor: - if you click "view history" on your draft (move the dots on the left to select which versions you'd like to compare) you can see. The three edits made on the page since you last altered it are:
1) Moving it from your sandbox to a draft 2) Adding a couple of tags 3) A different editor declining it from AfC - as Wikipedia can't self-cite. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

03:47:52, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Soundwavepulseblaster

I'm requesting a re-review because this rapper needs an article on Wikipedia. I hope I followed the terms this time as well.

Soundwavepulseblaster (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundwavepulseblaster: - the reviewer was correct to decline, as the draft needs more sources. Please take a look at the musician notability list of criteria. Fragmentationous would need to meet at least one of those, usually criterion 1 (multiple sources). Currently the only source doesn't appear to be about him so doesn't count. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:52, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Farhinvohra07


Farhinvohra07 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Why my article is rejected? Can you please help me out finding my answer?Farhinvohra07 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farhinvohra07 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farhinvohra07: As the big pink box at the top of Draft:Sajid Mirza 07 - Sensation TikTok Star says, the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if I change the topic of article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhinvohra07 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:39, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Guru1313


how do i submit the original draft, it appears am submitting a duplicate draft. Please i need some help. thanks

Guru1313 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guru1313: - I've submitted the original draft found here to AfC for you. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:52, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Shantiwong

My review said my article was contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Some explanation of why this is would be helpful. Shantiwong (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantiwong: - it's not clear what the draft is intending to talk about. It links to a couple of pre-existing articles and has a few weblinks, so doesn't appear to attempt to be an article. If you want to add those links to those articles then you can go there to do so (if they're appropriate)
If there's something we're missing than please let me know on my talk page (see the "talk" button in my signature) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:28, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Kendoma


Hello guys I don’t know why that article was denied. All i wrote about that person is real. He is a new rocking teenager in uganda so there is no that much references about him so I request your help Kendoma (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendoma: See the large pink box at the top of the draft. Wikipedia aims to cover people who are notable, who have attracted significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, as demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. A second reason the draft was declined is that it makes statements that cite no source(s). If there is "no that much references about him", then he is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:33, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Kendoma


Hello Am asking for assistance on that article because all i wrote in the article is true. I got everything from the main source when he was interviewed. This person i wrote about is a new fashion rocking teenager In uganda so he doesn’t have that much references online about him because he just made his breakthrough. This person was discovered on instagram. Thanks for your assistance Kendoma (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kendoma: I don't understand why you linked G. K. W. Perera in your question. Are you asking about User:Kendoma/sandbox (Ssentongo Faizo, better known as Fai Styles)? What do you mean by "got everything from the main source when he was interviewed"? Do you mean Faizo told you personally? Do you mean an interview with Faizo was published somewhere, and you drew your information from there? The draft is unacceptable because it cites no published, reliable, secondary sources independent of Faizo, that contain significant coverage of him. If he "just made his breakthrough", there may be no such sources, or too few such sources, in which case he unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:13:30, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Sucharita Sen

My article has been cancelled by the reviewer and the reason showing is lack of references. But I have given IMdb website and a person's personal website for reference. But it's not acceptable according to wikipedia rules. This is a Script Writer's biography so please help me ehich type reference or citations will be accepted?? Sucharita Sen (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sucharita Sen: - hi there. Notability in Wikipedia is demonstrated by the use of sources that are: secondary (newspapers, books etc); reliable (good editorial control, trustworthy); independent (no reason to be biased, which means most interviews are out) & have significant coverage (at least a few paragraphs about the individual).
best thing to do is take a look at a few good articles in Wikipedia to see the sources there. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:11, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Moonsoftwizz


Moonsoftwizz (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:56, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Hosseini.1991


I would like to know what changes I need to make exactly in order to have this article accepted. I do not understand why it is contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your help.


Hosseini.1991 (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:44:40, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Samrt tech

Request on 13:44:40, 28 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Samrt tech



Samrt tech (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:27, 28 June 2019 review of submission by BigBigL


BigBigL (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with a service like this if you're going to allow incapable reviewers to make assumptions about COI. My article was declined because of COI so I reviewed the COI rules and fail to understand how I have a personal conflict with this listing. I'm just trying to enrich your community of info but if your site is so slanted to not easily allow actual real contributions then perhaps I should stop using wiki altogether. I'm out here trying to contribute meaningful info and some hack declines it. This is beyond ridiculous, considering I just spent over 2 hours making a listing that should have already existed on this site.

 Comment: Entirely aside from any concern regarding COI; given it appears sections of the article have been copied directly from the organisation's website [1] [2] [3] [4], in addition to the complete lack of reliable secondary sources, leads me to concur with the decision of User:Jeff G. to decline the article. --Jack Frost (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:15, 28 June 2019 review of draft by Pgk707


As you suggested, I have merged both versions in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ERCIM Is there any possibility to delete https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Research_Consortium_for_Informatics_and_Mathematics and resubmit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ERCIM ? thanks for your help

Pgk707 (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pgk707: You are not the only substantial contributor to Draft:European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics, so you may not delete it, but if it is abandoned it will be deleted after 6 months. To submit Draft:ERCIM, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:55, 28 June 2019 review of draft by Superbrickbro


What would I need to add to this page to make it notable? I am just a beginner, so can someone tell me specific things I need to add to this document to make it able to be notable for and article status? Superbrickbro (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Superbrickbro: At least three reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and contain significant coverage (not mere passing mentions) of the subject are needed to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

10:03:01, 29 June 2019 review of submission by Pratiwicitra12

hello. I wrote my article as neutral as I can. I didn't write to promote that person.

Pratiwicitra12 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:51:50, 29 June 2019 review of submission by XernonnE.L.

This article clearly meets the notability requirements in multiple places for both the Composer,songwriter..librettist as well as musician group. Please review the criteria for both with regards to the revised article:

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: 

   Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
   Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc.) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time.
   Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
   Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
   Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
   Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music.

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. 

   Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]
       This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
           Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3]
           Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
           Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.
   Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
   Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
   Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.[note 4]
   Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).
   Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.[note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g. musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.)
   Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
   Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
   Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.
   Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).
   Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
   Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.


XernonnE.L. (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:54:39, 29 June 2019 review of submission by Keleperkins

I submitted a new article (on Patty Carreto) which was rejected on false grounds that I did not include any references. I did include a reference to a Los Angeles Times article from May 1987. The reviewer falsely claimed that no reference was included. Keleperkins (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keleperkins: - hi there. The reviewer was indeed incorrect to say that it had no sources - and yours is a good one. Unlike many sports, swimming doesn't have a specific "if you did this, you're notable" set of guidelines, so we default to the BASIC/GNG requirements. In short, that requires a 2nd good source, which is not yet met. I had a look for another source myself, and couldn't find any with more than 2 lines. However if you can find one with a couple of paragraphs that would be enough to demonstrate notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The LA times article is available online. I took a quick glance from that article and already found the information. The reviewer not only incorrectly said there's no source, but also incorrectly failed it per WP:NSPORTS. The subject passes notability per WP:NOLYMPICS. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:43, 29 June 2019 review of submission by 213.205.241.131

Article has been reviewed and passed through. There's never any worry about articles being forgotten - they work their way up in our list as they age. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:41, 29 June 2019 review of draft by Bonniedust


I'm requesting help because I do not understand in what way the article violets wikipedia's standards for referencing, and even more so, how it "needs more secondary sources". Every statement in this article is backed up with a source that meets journalistic standards. It would be helpful if the reviewer could point out which parts specifically he or she deems insufficient. Thank you! Bonniedust (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mjs1991: - I would say that while a couple might have issues, there's relatively little content that would violate the bare minimum standards of inline citations and I think they are covered. Their comment however is probably more legitimate (in terms of content that meets all 4 requirements of secondary/significant coverage/independent/reliable). I was unsure about the clash however, so hopefully they can clarify.
For future note, the easiest route is to go to their talk page (see the linked username above the resubmit button) and ask there. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bonniedust and Nosebagbear:, the reason i declined the article was the fact that most of the articles only relatively focus on Dan Bodan's albums, rather than himself. It's a fairly good article, but if there were more secondary sources that focused on him and gave it significant coverage then I'd gladly accept it. Have a read of WP:THREE--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Mjs1991 and Nosebagbear:. I added two more secondary sources with information on Bodan's life and activities that are not music-related. I would like to make sure that it now meets wikipedia's/your criteria?

17:38:53, 29 June 2019 review of draft by Nautiluscreed


Dear WikiProject Help Desk,

I would be very thankful, if you could give some pointers on speeding up the approval for the posting of this page. The image used for the profile was tagged as a potential copyright violation, however the owner of the image gave permission via OTRS. Could this be the reason for delays in approval?

Kind regards! Nautiluscreed (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nautiluscreed. The image has nothing to do with how long it takes to be reviewed. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for one week. The current backlog is four months. The best thing that you can do for the draft is to make it as good as possible, so that if it's approved (probably 80% of submissions never are), it's approved the first time it's reviewed. To do that, study Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and gain experience by editing existing articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:27:28, 29 June 2019 review of draft by Uipmonline2019


Uipmonline2019 (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

08:27:47, 30 June 2019 review of submission by Mariferchis


I have followed the advise of the reviewer and enlarged the contribution in order to show the relevance of defining a new art move that is emerging in France.

Best regards,

Mariferchis (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariferchis: With no substantive changes since your question was answered on 22 June, the draft remains unacceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:08, 30 June 2019 review of draft by The Greek FISHERMAN


The Greek FISHERMAN (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is currently in the pool of drafts awaiting review. The backlog is currently about 4 months, so please be patient. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:00, 30 June 2019 review of submission by Arsa123


Arsa123 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, why is the creation of the Appa group page not sufficient for Wikipedia? are there certain guidelines I forgot to include or did I break certain laws? Please let me know.
See below. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:28, 30 June 2019 review of submission by Arsa123


Arsa123 (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Het david, What would make this sufficient for Wikipedia? Is there not enough info?

I see some problems here:

21:36:16, 30 June 2019 review of draft by Mercer5089


I have added a source which is a paper map of the county. Is this a reliable enough reference? I could add a Wisconsin Highway Map as a reference as well.

Mercer5089 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mercer5089 yes you can reference a published map. There is even a {{Cite map}} template that you can use. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

Request on 05:02:54, 1 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nilomimehta



Nilomimehta (talk) 05:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please find that we have not used any copyrighted material illegally or unethically. The website IAGD has granted us rights to use the information published on their page. Please help us get this article published.

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts cannot be shared by multiple people. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:50:14, 1 July 2019 review of submission by 77.247.249.172


77.247.249.172 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:09, 1 July 2019 review of submission by Gopal jha bjp


Gopal jha bjp (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:13:59, 1 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 65.242.187.146


Thanks for the note. I’m sorry the page came across as promotional. We modeled it after the UCaaS wiki page. Can you be more specific regarding what was promotional about it? We’re more than happy to add/delete/edit with your guidance. Thank you.


65.242.187.146 (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who is "we"? If you are getting paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose it. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:31, 1 July 2019 review of submission by Mohammadk97


The reason for the rejection, which was "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", was not very clear. I don't see any reason for it not being accepted, even after reviewing all the rules of submission. The person of the titled article is well known in the automobiles business in Lebanon, and is looked upon by so many people interested in the industry. I've edited the intro and added his Guinness Word Record breaking.

Mohammadk97 (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:16:06, 1 July 2019 review of submission by HillsOne


HillsOne (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:09, 1 July 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:30AC:F6D2:572C:63BC

So there was going to be a announcement during September and we have to wait.

2600:1700:93B0:1350:30AC:F6D2:572C:63BC (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:03, 1 July 2019 review of submission by Farhinvohra07


I am sking for re-review because i have written this content by myself. And for the person i am writing is famous person he is a creator of 07 team a famous tiktok team which has million of followers in India as well as worldwide.

If there is any mistake in content or title is not suitable please advice me I will change the content and title. Farhinvohra07 (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:01:42, 1 July 2019 review of submission by O'Hagan22


Hi, This is my first time publishing a page so I have a lot to learn, my recent attempt to publish the above page was declined and I am unsure what I should do in order to move forward. My recent note was 'references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage' The page I'm trying to create is information on a novel which has been published in several countries and languages, has been reviewed by a number of notable newspapers and magazines, NY Times, Guardian, Telegraph and so on and It was published by a well known and reputable publishers Faber & Faber and is sold in most high street book stores. The author in question has a number of novels some of which are on schools curriculums. Having looked at other contemporary authors and their novels pages I can't see any notable difference in my content. Could you please advise? Thank you :)


O'Hagan22 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:49:52, 1 July 2019 review of submission by Vishnubharathan002

vishnu bharathan is a notable person in malayalam short films , his works are famous beacuse of its humour . it was widley got critical and audience appreciation , so here request you to please re think about this decison Vishnubharathan002 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


19:01:45, 1 July 2019 review of draft by Pi314m


It could very well be that the publication itself (HRO Today) is not notable, in which case I can easily understand that it has no place in Wikipedia, _BUT_

the awards they put out, (Baker's dozen, Top RPO (Recruitment process outsourcing) Provider, and other CapitaLized AcroNyms), get attention.
  • HRO Today is cited both in Wiki articles and in NYTimes articles that follow awardees of HRO Today's awards
Question: Should the article be flipped- named something like HRO Today award series and then just have a minor section about the magazine, which still does seem notable for-
an article titled "Insourcing, Outsourcing? How about Self-sourcing?" that
  • mined Wikipedia's history of a pair of banks that merged decades ago as Standard Chartered and, after September 11, rebuilt its personnel department in an innovative way.
as for a pair of words, "selfsourcing" or "self-sourcing" : I have no source that they were first, so I wrote that the article was an "early user of."

To repeat and summarize: Am I better off "flipping" the orientation to awards - since that's what gets attention? Pi314m (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi314m (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:52, 1 July 2019 review of submission by Beth A. Farrell


Beth A. Farrell (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name: Beth Farrell

User Name: Beth A. Farrell

Hi! I was notified that my submission was declined because it appeared to be a "test article". I don't understand what that means. I'm trying to submit my information/article as a legitimate, recognized and published artist. Any advice on how I can do that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Beth Farrell

Beth A. Farrell I wouldn't of denied it as a test edit. However I do see two problems here. First off it seems to be a autobiography which are strongly discouraged here on Wikipedia. Secondly you only have a link to your personal website for a reference which is a primary source. Wikipedia requires several secondary sources for inclusion on Wikipedia. Whispering(t) 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


July 2

Request on 02:38:22, 2 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Adwerd



Adwerd (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC) I have been trying to wite an article bit is being rejected for some reasons can you help me with that please[reply]

04:06:13, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Fans of samrat


News article is given as reference. Twitter and IMDB are in a external link. To prove anything, news article reference is enough. Kindly recheck once again. I've write very basic information about person with news reference. Hope this will be publish soon.

Fans of samrat (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05:01:51, 2 July 2019 review of submission by 61.69.125.170

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Jacob is a professional footballer playing in Cyprus, as a professional footballer. There are far more insignificant athletes with profiles then Jacob. ie Bai Antoniou

61.69.125.170 (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05:45:38, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Jani.rik


Hi,

I made a few changes to the article. I added more credible references to the text for example from Nasdaq. I also re-write more articulate text about the company's services.

Br, Jani

Jani.rik (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:06:14, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Nilomimehta


Nilomimehta (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Hi I need your help. My article has been declined for copyright infringement but the website from which the content is clashing has given us full authority to use the same. Kindly help me with the same.[reply]

Nilomimehta Pls provide link of the page where it stated such claimed. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:19:06, 2 July 2019 review of submission by 21805hp

Hunter is a Political Activist and a Youtuber, he has done amazing things for someone of his age, his Wikipedia page is a great place for people who don't know alot about him to find out. Please approve it 21805hp (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any affiliation with him? I'm unwilling to approve this, because Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for promoting something or somebody. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:51, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Mikedc73

Please give help in how to get this published. Mikedc73 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


07:49:06, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet


Could you check over the article for The The Youth? Have made some changes. Thanks.

Swampcygnet (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:16:21, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Jordi Scott


hi hi the article of Jeffrey Feinman had been updated by adding more references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeffrey_Feinman

Pls review and see if it is acceptable for publishing.

If any further enhancement is needed, pls advise what should be done.

thx Jordi Scott (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft still has no inline citations and the tone is totally unacceptable "Dr. Jeff and his wonderful wife Amy live in Weston", "highly successful practice", "homeopathy’s remarkable successes", "prestigious Proceedings". for example! Theroadislong (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:32, 2 July 2019 review of draft by Paulmil


Paulmil (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made the revisions to Henry Moss page 6 months ago and am still waiting for approval. I understand this can take up to 8 weeks but 6 months seems to be an unduly long time. Please advise. Thank you.

Hi Paulmil. The draft was submitted on 24 March, so it hasn't been quite 6 months yet. The current backlog (advertised as "8 weeks or more") is actually about 4 months right now. So the draft likely will be reviewed later this month. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:04, 2 July 2019 review of submission by SuperSwift

The original page for Bella Disu has been blocked for reasons of putting up promotional content and as such I cannot move the draft. I've written this article from a NPOV and have done so with the aim of promoting notable women through the Women in Red Project. I need this article to be reviewed so that Deb can unblock the page. Thanks

SuperSwift (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SuperSwift. To have the draft reviewed, add {{subst|submit}} to the top of the draft. The current reviewing backlog is roughly four months. If that doesn't seem super swift, you (and Deb) are welcome to sign up to join the reviewing team. It isn't the done thing to review your own submission, but you could nudge it along by helping reduce the backlog. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under no circumstances should User:SuperSwift review his own draft. Deb (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:31, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Jordi Scott


article of Jeffrey Feinman was edited based on given comment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeffrey_Feinman

Pls see if it will be acceptable or further editing is required.

Thks and regards

Jordi Scott (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:58:22, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Saeedr2000


Saeedr2000 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


hello what sources are required until accept this wiki page ? Fataneh is a famous iranin singer but she have not website thanks

Saeedr2000 The reviewer had given the answer on the comment section and in the grey panel atop of the page. We need independent, reliable sources such as from major newspapers for verification. Sources can be in any languages. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:10:01, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Novembersummer


Novembersummer (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Have shared details of a novel that was published in 2014 along with ten web links, including the book launch event in Mumbai. The book is available on Amazon and Flipkart apart from having a proper ISBN listing code on goodreads. Despite that the article has been rejected. Kindly help on what proof is needed to show notability.[reply]

no Declined with further explanation on User:Novembersummer/sandbox of notability for books. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:01, 2 July 2019 review of submission by Mpampismate


Hello,

there is a page for Pix4D but not for its major product "pix4dmapper". The article is edited with a neutral point of view like "3DF Zephyr", "IMAGINE Photogrammetry", "Metashape" etc. Those pages were taken as a template in order for the article to be as neutral and unbiased as possible. Mpampismate (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of one article doesn't necessarily mean that another does too, see WP:OSE. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:19, 2 July 2019 review of submission by QuantumBinary


QuantumBinary (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told numerous times that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:45:34, 2 July 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mercer5089


I'm confused about why my added source - the paper map - is not verifiable. Are you asking me to literally show you the map? How would you like me to verify it?

Mercer5089 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:33, 2 July 2019 review of draft by Alightjones


I am working on adding an article about Veronica Kirin and my submission was rejected due to not enough citations regarding her awards. I have photos of each of her awards (from the source). How can these be submitted or should I leave awards off altogether? I am having trouble finding how to include citations for these items as news coverage was limited or out of print.

Here is a Dropbox folder with all the images: Dropbox link w award images for citation.


Alightjones (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=904521843"