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 Sanavi gupta k (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 23 October 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


October 17

03:29:32, 17 October 2019 review of draft by Ramongonsalis123


I published this again with proper resources and changed the unreliable ones still nothing happened, can someone help me in actually getting this to being published.

Ramongonsalis123 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramongonsalis123: The problem is that the fighter's accomplishments are insufficient to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability criteria for mixed martial arts fighters revolve around their fights for top-tier MMA organizations. If Desert Force Championship were top-tier, he would need at least three (3) professional fights for it, or to have fought for the highest title of it, neither of which is true. Moreover, Desert Force Championship is not a top-tier MMA organization. Unless there's more to his fighting career than the draft says, the topic is not acceptable for publication on Wikipedia. You may wish to consider alternative outlets for your writing about him. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:14, 17 October 2019 review of submission by 1.127.111.98


1.127.111.98 (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a person, or any subject, to be considered notable for wikipedia, it has to meet WP:42 - it has to have had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Unless you are a programmer who has been covered in reliable sources, it is not possible to have an article. This is because it would not be possible to verify the contents of the article - if there are no reliable sources, the article could essentially just say what the subject wanted it to. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn
Additionally, writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:11, 17 October 2019 review of submission by Vasareliepaite


Hello, I would like to know why my article about Dione ice cream is declined? It looks like I've done everything properly (citations, etc). Could you please explain what should I do better (add something, or make some corrections, etc)? It would be really helpful, thank you!

Vasareliepaite (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vasareliepaite, the article was rejected by AFC because it wasn't deemed to be notable - see WP:42 - Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In your case, I imagine the problem was significant coverage. Simple mentions of the company existing, or routine press release type mentions aren't determined to be significant.
Now, for whatever reason, a user moved the article out of draft into the encyclopedia. They are well within their rights to do this, but I don't think it was a good decision when the article isn't ready. Because of this, it has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dione (ice cream) - what happens next is determined by consensus in that discussion. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:22, 17 October 2019 review of submission by Millie Vago


Millie Vago (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm having a lot a trouble dealing with the publishing of my article because I don't get why is it that declines. I took all of the external links from the body text and put them as "cite", as I think it should be; or so I understood. Could you please help me?

Thank you!

@Millie Vago: The most recent declination was for content that sounds like an advertisement, not for your referencing style. The topmost box on your draft has some helpful links about how to improve your draft. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! What should I take out of it? It's a Biography, and as such, it contains a lot of refferences about work places and companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millie Vago (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millie Vago, I recommend you follow the advice given to you by TheRoadIsLong, the last reviewer regarding phrasing. Remember, this is an encyclopedic article, which should read neutral. Wikipedia is not for promoting people, it is for gathering useful and notable knowledge. You also need to go through the references. Only include references that directly talk about the subject, are reliable, and independent of the subject. Unusable references should be removed. Uncited claims should generally be remove, as this is a biography of a living person. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:03:12, 17 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ashleyj618


An article for MB Real Estate was recently rejected for not being sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. What can be added to this entry for approval?

Ashleyj618 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyj618, the subject needs signifigant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The sources listed were either promotional, or just mentioned the subject in passing. If you can find those sources, do and add them. But it seems that such coverage may not exist, in which case the subject is just not notable. Alas, there are millions of businesses and we can't cover them all. Only a handful actually qualify for inclusion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:29, 17 October 2019 review of draft by TrevlacT


I am trying to understand what, if any changes are needed to the article to meet the "noteability" requirement. Margaret Hamer/Maggie Browne was a popular children's author as was her mother Sarah Sharp Hamer for whom there is an existing Wikipedia page. When I look at Sarah's page it appears to have a similar form, and references a page for Maggie Browne which does not exist. My intention was to plug that hole by providing a Maggie Browne page

Would providing references to her books for sale on Amazon be considered better citations ?

I am not trying to challenge the decision, simply to decide what type of changes or additions are needed for acceptance.

TrevlacT (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrevlacT (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TrevlacT, To get the article passed you need sources that talk about her as a person. Using Amazon sale links is not acceptable. Ideally, you'd find newspaper articles or a book written about her. But regardless of the form of the source, it must be reliable and secondary, not primary. Keep trying at it, work to revise it, and don't be afraid to ask more questions here. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

01:52:04, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Nitrous1200


Additional Sources found and cited.

Nitrous1200 (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitrous1200: You have already submitted it, please wait for it to be reviewed. Expect this process to take ~2 months. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nitrous1200, I have reviewed it. Several issues remain, chiefly the sourcing and the wording. More reliable sources are needed, and as this is a biography of a living person (per WP:BLP) most statements require an inline citation as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:15:39, 18 October 2019 review of submission by NickHailey

I think the subject is now notable for a page. NickHailey (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NickHailey, I have submitted for review under your name, and I invite you to be WP:BOLD and fix it (one of Wikipedia's core ideas!). If you think this person is now notable, you must improve the article to show that. Find reliable sources and expand the article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NickHailey: - hi there. Reviewers will look at the draft itself - it doesn't need content added directly to the help desk. Best of luck with your editing Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Review

07:50:05, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Mainowner

I would like to write few more article about school and temple in my location .But previous article not yet published .Please let me know i can write more article ?.If i maid any error in submitted article , i need to rectify it next article.When my above mansion article reviewed?

Mainowner (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mainowner: - you can have multiple drafts pending. In terms of timing of review of your original draft, - currently we have a major (though shrinking) backlog, with drafts there about 14 weeks last time I checked. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:09:55, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Elenmelkonyan123


Hello I need help with Draft:InLobby. My article submission has been rejected for not being sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia and the reviewer commented it as basically advertising . However I have done a detailed research on the topic , found notable sources for my article, followed all the guidelines and haven't used a primary source...So please, if you have a time read my draft and explain me, which parts they qualified as advertisment and what can I do to improve it. Your comment on it will be highly appreciated ! Elenmelkonyan123 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elenmelkonyan123: Sources 1 and 3 look like recycled press releases from non-WP:RS websites to me (press releases are not independent). Sources 2 and 4 are interviews, so they aren't independent of the company either. If these are the best sources you can find, then this company is not notable, and no amount of editing will ever be able to fix that problem. shoy (reactions) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:25, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Sanjaysharma5882

I just need advice, why my article is rejected.

Please give me feedback so I can work on this and request for re-verify. Sanjaysharma5882 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjaysharma5882, The article is overly promotional, and the subject may not be notable. You need to find multiple reliable sources that mention the subject with significant coverage. If a reference does not mention the subject, don't include it. Regardless, the page is not written like a neutral encyclopedia article and only serves to promote its subject. Please read WP:N to understand the style of writing and presentation expected on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:21, 18 October 2019 review of submission by JaneShuttleworth


Please could you advise how this article could be more 'neutral'. I carefully researched other Wikipedia articles for similar organisations before writing this, and modelled my submission on work already approved and published. The article is an entirely factual representation of a non-profit-making organisation so if you could highlight aspects that are considered not to be neutral, I'd be grateful for the guidance.

In respect of sources, the article references 20 external sources, including the BBC, the Guardian, Classical Music Magazine and local print press.

A number of published Wikipedia articles refer to Samling Institute or its programmes in the body text or in references (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Banfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuccia_Focile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olga_Jegunova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justina_Gringytė https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Allen_(baritone) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Buchanan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Costa-Jackson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuna_Scott_Sendall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Over https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wnukowski). Having a page for Samling Institute that these references can linked to would improve the credibility and give greater depth to these articles.

Finally, it seems strange that an organisation that has been given the title 'Institute' in the UK should not be considered worthy of a Wikipedia entry. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute which says In the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man the term "institute" is a protected word and companies or other organizations may only use the word if they are "organisations which are carrying out research at the highest level or to professional bodies of the highest standing" [1]

JaneShuttleworth (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example this "The Samling Artist Programme brings together emerging classical singers and pianists – usually in the final stages of their studies, or the early stages of their careers – with internationally recognised artists, directors, actors and movement and language coaches in a series of week-long, intensive, residential masterclasses. Participants are selected through a combination of recommendation and audition. The coaching is predominantly carried out in private, but the residential week ends with a public masterclass and concert." is entirely unsourced and promotional. Theroadislong (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute

13:49:23, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Johnny234424


I don't understand what is wrong with my article that it keeps getting rejected. This article and submission is for a English Course I am taking in college. If this article doesn't get accepted by sunday night then I'll fail my mid-term. Please help or explain why they won't accept it. Thank you. Johnny234424 (talk) 13:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnny234424: - I believe the inline sources are being refuted because you're using primary/non-independent sources, that is, they can't be trusted as independent reliable sources. I personally feel it's pretty close - it needs a couple of sources to support the key things (who he played for etc) and then you can either find more sources to support the other facts or trim them.
Wikipedia cannot run to external deadlines - we specifically discourage courses from requiring acceptance as a minimum criterion. I'd advise raising our inability to guarantee acceptance (or even a review) on a short or medium timescale, rapidly. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny234424: Like Nosebagbear says, we can't change our guidelines to meet artificial external deadlines. If your professor really wants to assign Wikipedia articles as coursework, then they need to work with WP:WEP in a structured fashion. shoy (reactions) 15:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny234424:, Nosebagbear and Shoy hit the nail (mostly) on the head. At the time, internal citations weren't used. Now they have, which is great! Additionally, Krevis meets our notability guidelines for NFL players, which is awesome. What was concerning to me was some of the sentences in the article that come across as way too informal for an encyclopedia, and can't be backed up with the references provided:
  • According to him, he liked the sport more than studying. He was known for being a punishing lineman and earned himself quite the reputation during his college years.
  • In 2019, his estimated income is $100.000-1 million.[8] He is retired and doesn’t play professionally but is still active on social media and likes to include himself in the sport industry.[9] He prefers to go to the games, rather than watch it on TV.[10]

Did you interview Krevis as part of your assignment? Bkissin (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:00, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Doggygirl1234

Hey! I am trying to edit a page for my friend Lauren she has millions of followers online and tons of articles. I have included someone that just mention her but there are a lot of articles fully about her in her references, do I have to shorten the article? Here page was up on Wikipedia for years but was deleted after an editing war. Please let me know if you can advise. Thanks so much! Jenn Doggygirl1234 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doggygirl1234, We strongly advise against editing the articles of people you know, as that constitutes a conflict of interest (see WP:COI). If you are editing the article, only sources that are reliable, independent should be used. All others, and their information, should usually be discarded. Additionally, several of those sources must have significant coverage of the subject to ensure her notability. If such sources cannot be found or do not exist, then the subject is not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Captain Eek! This was helpful, I have never met lauren but followed her online for years, how do I know if sources are reliable, independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doggygirl1234 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doggygirl1234, well I suggest you read the policies (linked above) to get a feel for it. In general, a source like the New York Times is reliable and usually independent. It is a reputable major newspaper, and its content is made by its reporters. A bad source would be a press release by a company used in an article for that company: the source is inherently biased towards that company. Social media posts and youtube videos are not usually reliable or independent. Articles that feel like clickbait, or clickbaity websites, are often not reliable either. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:35, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Zionstar888


Zionstar888 (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, I have re-edited this article, so I will like you to review it once again... Thank you very much!

You have not re-submitted yet, but the draft is still no where near ready for accepting, please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources and even if he really is "a dedicated cross-cultural missionary, an Author, and award winning Graphic designer." I don't think he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:20, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Vinvibes


Hi, its after a long gap that I have made an attempt to publish on Wikipedia, and would like someone more experienced to check my draft and point out how it can be improved, and get published. Thanks in advance, regards User:Vinvibes 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinvibes: I'm afraid that draft doesn't seem to exist at the moment, nor do I see a similar draft which you have edited recently. Did you forget to save the draft? Am I missing something? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that you have just created it. I suggest you submit the draft for review. It might take a bit to get reviewed, as there is a large review backlog, but that'll give you time to keep improving it and working on other articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its great to interact after a long time; so how else can I improve on it? Any suggestions? Thanks in advance, regardsVinvibes 17:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinvibes (talk • contribs)
Vinvibes, I have gone ahead and submitted and reviewed it on your behalf. Main issues here: needs better sources to establish notability. Most of the sources just seem to be interviews of him, which is not sufficient. Also, is overly promotional: the wording should be neutral. The anecdote about wearing his fathers clothes should go. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - will remove this part...what else comes across as promotional? If you go thrugh the content, I have tried to just glean the gist of facts and used them, and left out the rest simply because it would seem too promotional. Thanks for the effort, regards Vinvibes 18:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Vinvibes, Both his motive and his tagline should go. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEekHi, I have removed whatever you asked me to omit, and have managed to find about 3 more fresh links, which I have added, but am yet to resubmit. The thing is what I have realized about these references is that they are independent alright but mostly relevant to Canada or Nigeria. I explored them around a bit and found that they are typical online mags but not exactly world renowned, they are more country specific or subject specific. Is that why they don't seem valid? And I have also followed your advice and put a message in the Teahouse for help. Thanks & regardsVinvibes 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinvibes:Alas, most of the sources do not appear to be independent. Better sourcing will be required. Interviews do not usually count towards notability.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek:Hi, yes, much of the info is indeed revealed through interviews...so what do you suggest I should do about this on? Can I keep it here as a draft till I am able to find some featured article over the coming week or so? Thanks & regards, Vinvibes 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:07, 18 October 2019 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:1A72:8300:FDCA:651E:7029:DACB


2A02:C7D:1A72:8300:FDCA:651E:7029:DACB (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:42 to understand the basics of notability. If you can find sources as outlined, the subject may be included. But the current sources do not establish that the person is notable for inclusion. Work to find more, and better sources. But it may be that the subject is just simply not notable at this time, which is common; there are 8 billion people but only very few can make it onto Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:12, 18 October 2019 review of submission by ASHUDU


ASHUDU (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC) because he is a notable person and we are gathering information for his other sources to edit more parts of this article.[reply]

@ASHUDU: - two things:
1) You say "we are gathering" - are you an organisational account?
2) Nothing in the article indicates that he is a notable individual unless and until he's such a famous political strategist that reliable, secondary sources are covering him Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:20, 18 October 2019 review of submission by Coe-1878

Hello, I'm trying to create a new article on Professor Kumares C. Sinha from Purdue University. I've made the title in the article wizard, but when I try to enter text a notice indicates the following: "The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism." Can somebody let me know what is necessary to be able to create this page? thanks. Coe-1878 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coe-1878, Were you trying to create a draft version? Or a final version? What was the exact title you tried to enter? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coe-1878 and CaptainEek: This message means that the title was blacklisted locally or globally. AFAIK the title of the page can be found in the logs, but you need admin rights to access it. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt mobil, Coe-1878, Yeah its on the local title blacklist as "((User)|(Draft)).*[Ss]inha.* # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bikram Jit Sinha". Anything with Sinha in a draft title gets flagged. I'll drop a note on the admins board to try to fix the issue. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:34, 18 October 2019 review of draft by Juliaferrari


Juliaferrari (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to learn how to make a submission about the small press that I am part of and also to link my name to my deceased partner's website who was Dan Carr. Can you help me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliaferrari (talk • contribs)

@Juliaferrari: First off, read our conflict of interest policy and our policy on promotion.
If you want to try again, then try following these instructions on how to write articles that won't be rejected or deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

05:56:37, 19 October 2019 review of submission by RahulJ730

I have removed all the promotional content on which the objection was raised. I have provided News links too. Still Wikipedia thinks it's an advertising. Please show me which lines of the content look like advertisement. And, please re-review my article once and suggest me the changes you want. RahulJ730 (talk) 05:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RahulJ730, For starters, all of the sources about her life need a reliable source that is cited inline. Also, the medical claims made at the end need a WP:MEDRS -- a more stringent source than usual. The whole public interaction section should go. And the global presence feels like I'm reading a LinkedIn, not an encyclopedia. It should probably all be removed or briefly summarized under career. Also, please go through all sources to ensure they are reliable and independent. If they aren't, get rid of them. You likely need to find more sources regardless as well. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:34, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Huskhod

why your article submission was declined? Huskhod (talk) 08:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huskhod: Wikipedia isn't a free alternative to advertise a company. In addition, Wikipedia has to adhere to copyright laws. Therefore, we cannot accept material from elsewhere on the web. This especially important because it can put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:08, 19 October 2019 review of submission by JamesTOswald


Hello AFC, Thank you for the feedback on my article. Since my first review, I have added much better independent sourcing to establish notability, I now have citations to 4 independent interviews from the subject, 2 independent articles on him, As well as 6 or so other independent sources that mention him and his work. Ontop of this I removed any sections that are not backed up with independent sources (early life and family life), as well as subsequently removing sources which were not independent in the first draft such as the subjects blog and youtube. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve this article. Thank You,

JamesTOswald (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are still using YouTube, Twitter and blogs which are not reliable sources and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Hello, Thank you for your quick reply! The single YouTube reference is a link to when the channel info page when it was created, and its original names, this is not self published and is automatically generated by YouTube. The twitter reference is pointing out something of little relevance in a subsection and ill get rid of what it cites as well as the link (ill keep this in mind for future articles). As for interviews not being independent sources, Can you please point me to accepted policy on this? I spent a long time looking at Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources#Non-independent_sources and was under the impression that when establishing notability for a person, The only way to do so was through independent articles and interviews of the on the person (how else would we get any information on the person other then interviewing them or having a 3rd party interact with them?). Looking at Wikipedia:Interviews it appears all of my linked interviews meet independence criterion. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if there is anything else. Thanks so much! JamesTOswald (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I've removed the twitter citation JamesTOswald (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said. The publications are merely repeating their comments, typically with minimal editing. No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material." Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong That's for reliability rather then independence, also since "If the material is primary, then it is treated as if the interviewee had written the same content on their website or Twitter. As long as we can be reasonably certain that the material was written by them, then the Wikipedia policy on primary sources applies. Such material can be used, but needs to be used with care, and only to cite facts that can be verified from the source itself." Since I am using it to cite facts that can be proved from the source this would still allow it to fall under reliability, no? JamesTOswald (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JamesTOswald, For material in-text, primary sources such as interviews should be used only sparingly. For establishing notability, interviews are not sufficient. To establish notability, only reliable, independent, secondary sources can be used. Look for articles in news sites, newspapers and magazines, references in books, or the like. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:49:40, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Brettq888


Brettq888 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

I was told to ask for assistance with editing my article I drafted here for tips to make sure that is passes review next time. So, is there anyone who can give me some advice or assist me?


Thank you

You need to provide reliable independent sources that talk in-depth about the term/concept. This means no passing mentions and no sources from organizations related to the concept. For starters, can you cite multiple reliable sources that support the statement: "Fraud Orchestration is a paradigm, a unified approach to fraud investigations, operations and fraud compliance." That would be the first step. Without such sources, it's a neologism, as the reviewer stated. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:02, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Shifaradiowala

I have queries about what I could use as source for citation for my Article since IMDB doesn't qualify do news sites like times and mumbai mirror do? If not those then what other sites can I use for citations? I am fairly new to the site so thank you for the help. Shifaradiowala (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shifaradiowala. Major newspapers such as The Times of India and Mumbai Mirror are generally reliable sources for pop culture, as are entertainment magazines such as The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Although reliable, they may not always be independent. They may reprint press releases, either explicitly or as churnalism. They may also use an interview format to let someone talk about themselves without independent analysis by the interviewer. Even when they are reliable and independent, they may contain only passing mentions of a person, such as in a list of cast and crew, without going into any detail about them. Books are often good sources, although they too must be evaluated for reliability, independence, and significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:05, 19 October 2019 review of draft by Wikimility


Sk sahoo is a actor i am her best friend . I want to add his biography on Wikipedia so i try this page . But you tell me it is not possible ? Please help and support my friend

Do you want to verify he is actor or not please search on Google SubhraKant Sahoo actor Wikimility (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikimility. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to write about your friends (or yourself, your family, or your organization). If you want to improve the encyclopedia, see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:50:12, 19 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Baozon90


2019 maine black bears women field hockey team season

Baozon90 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baozon90, The issue here is several fold. For starters, you've left the templated parts of the article that you're supposed to replace with your own text. You also have only one source, and basically no information. Please see 2018–19 Boston Bruins season as an example of a hockey season page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:57:50, 19 October 2019 review of submission by Notjoemama1

To whoever it may concern, The Wikipedia page about Nathan Duttlinger was rejected due to lack of notoriety for Wikipedia. However, we disagree. Not only has the page been cleaned up and now appears much more professional, but Nathan is also a person with enough notoriety for Wikipedia. He has been quoted by many people to be an inspiration and a role model, and is a two-time qualifier for the Fortnite world cup. I'd like to mention this because of the fact that this year's Fortnite World Cup winner has his own Wikipedia page, so why can't he?

Regards, Notjoemama1 Notjoemama1 (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Notjoemama1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It contains biographical articles about notable people. It is not like Facebook or other sites where people "have their own pages". Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft lists three "sources", but none of them mention Duttlinger, so it fails to demonstrate that he is notable.
I don't see an encyclopedia article about Kyle Giersdorf, but as this year's winner of the Fortnite World Cup, he's more likely to have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time than Duttlinger, who you say has qualified to compete for the cup, but not won it. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

02:17:18, 20 October 2019 review of submission by 2402:8100:2190:ED1B:0:0:1859:225


Dear Wikipedia Admin we Will Submit Another News Source if you want and how to Verify This Page. I have Already mention proof of WP:NACTOR .

Pls Tell me Briefly.

2402:8100:2190:ED1B:0:0:1859:225 (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any proof of WP:NACTOR. Regardless, the article appears to be a repeated recreation, and will likely be deleted as an attempt to game the system. The only sources appear to be press releases, which are not suitable for use as sources. Really what you'd need would be articles in reliable newspapers. But those don't appear to exist for this person. That means this person is just not notable at this time. There are 8 billion living people, and only very few are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Please move on to working on a different article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:43:12, 20 October 2019 review of draft by TPCross


Can I inquire about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:National_Institute_of_Social_Sciences

Nearly 11 weeks ago, I addressed the issues raised by the editor.

Many thanks.

TPCross (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TPCross, It is awaiting review. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, although there is an emphasis on very new and very old drafts. The review time is currently longer than usual, as there is a large backlog of drafts. The typical review time is currently more than 8 weeks. Hopefully your draft will be gotten to soon. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:28, 20 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 83Gulf


I'm trying to reference my new article - Flexibound but I can't find authoritative refs i.e.: online from universities, news articles, e-books. All is see using the search: flexibound, flex-bound, flexi boung, flexibind, flexi-bind, flexi-binding, fexi binding...anyway you get the idea. All search terms list .com websites that are booksellers or printers. I can't find anything from .edu, .org, .gov,...trust me, I'm very good at search. No news anywhere about this type of binding. I don't have any books that would explain what it is, so I can't ref that Yet, it is a word "flexibound" that's used everywhere if I was buying the book or wanted it printed. The only reason I wanted to make the article was because I never heard the term before and so the 1st place I naturally looke was here. I don't want to mark it for deletion, I don't give up that easy. PLEASE HELP!! I have very little hair left.

83Gulf (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

83Gulf, Howdy hello! I suspect that Flexibound is just not notable enough for an article of its own in that case. Articles make it onto Wikipedia becuase they have reliable sources write about them. If something doesn't have any sources writing about it, its not notable. Your quest may work better as an addition to the Bookbinding page, instead of as a page of its own. But in trying to find more sources, I recommend turning to ...you guessed it a book. A book about bookbinding or book making might have what you need. But you seem to have exhausted most traditional sourcing; there really may not be anything reliable written about it. Some things just aren't written down :/ Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:34:52, 20 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Healing Counselling


I requested 'Perpetuity Diet' to be placed on Wiki and it was declined. Please advise how I can get the Perpetuity Diet posted as I did not believe it was promoting a person, product or belief, so I am a little confused as I am a Psychological researcher and it is not about me or what I believe in.

The Vegan diet promotes a long and healthy life as other diets do, please advise how I can list this on Wiki.

Thank you

Robert Lower 0425738093

Healing Counselling (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healing Counselling, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. To feature your diet in the encyclopedia, it needs to meet all of the article criteria in Wikipedia:Everything you need to know. Most importantly, it must have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If it doesn't have this, we can't verify the article's contents, therefore we can't have an article.
Additionally, if you are being paid to create articles, or are creating articles are part of your employment, you are required to disclose this - WP:PAID, and to follow the Conflict of Interest editing guidelines - WP:COI. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:16, 20 October 2019 review of draft by MelvinSeja


Im requesting for help because my article was declined because there is an exisiting draft. Isn't there a way my own draft article can be merged with the existing draft article without me editing someone's article? because the draft article diego tryno ,is now 9months old and it doesn't have much information as mine has. MelvinSeja (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelvinSeja, You are free to merge them together, simply copy information from one to the other, following the first step of WP:MERGETEXT - as their both drafts the following steps don't matter.
No user owns any Wikipedia article (WP:OWN), and you can edit any page here (within reason) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:15, 20 October 2019 review of submission by Mikelmurf

Hello, I would like to know how to proceed to publish this article. I have searched a lot of information and I have only found it in physical format through specialized music magazines. 

Formerly there was a website where the history of this record label was explained, but unfortunately it is no longer available. I can't find any article on the internet, which makes reference to this record label (which is why I decided to make it fair by publishing an article about it on Wikipedia, so it wouldn't be forgotten) I would greatly appreciate any help you could offer me, because by not finding references on the internet, I don't know how to proceed. I have publications on paper that talk about it and explain the history, but they are not digitalized or published on the web (something normal because it is something old) thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikelmurf (talk • contribs)

Sources don't have to be online to be used - see Wikipedia:Offline sources. If the sources meet the other criteria (significant coverage, reliable, independent), their accessability is not important. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 10:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:47, 20 October 2019 review of draft by MelvinSeja


Hi, my draft article was declined because there is another draft article Diego Tryno that was posted before mine ,so i merged my draft article with the old draft article .My worry is the old article was posted in June ,and it still hasn't been reviewed ,i checked the history and there has been numerous edits from different users, now that i added part of my article in it does it mean i have to join the waiting 'gang'of users? haha we all need a laugh here and there, anyway is there a way to review the old article faster so that i personally don't have to wait for long? MelvinSeja (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelvinSeja Can you describe how he meets WP:SINGER please? The draft's sources include a lot of blogs which are not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:11, 20 October 2019 review of submission by Kapa89


Kapa89 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two new sources. Now it should be in accordance with the requirements of Wikipedia.

@Kapa89:, as the most recent reviewer has stated, the sources added are not reliable, secondary, in-depth and independent. One is a blog through IBM, and the other is directly tied to the company. You need to look for secondary sources (newspapers, books etc). It may well be that there are not multiple sources meeting these requirements, at least at the moment, so a page would be possible at this point Nosebagbear (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:45:56, 20 October 2019 review of submission by Red Winter Fox


Red Winter Fox (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC) I did an Articles and it took me like 3 hours to done and when saved and published it been denide I want to know the reason and how can I solve it, Its about (Star wars: Jedi Temple on Ilum) game on roblox link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Star_Wars:_Jedi_Temple_on_Ilum help please[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for game guides. There are plenty of websites out there that host game guides, Wikipedia is not one of them. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:30, 20 October 2019 review of draft by FaultySubset84


FaultySubset84 (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was just curious if the draft Im working on was actually submitted for review. If someone could check on that, I would appreciate it

@Nosebagbear:, your most recent version is indeed submitted into the queue Nosebagbear (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@FaultySubset84:, Okay, thanks for checking on it.

18:36:59, 20 October 2019 review of submission by PattonJ3


Hi,

Making a new submission to get the above article approved by Wikipedia. I have been in touch with MMA fighter Peter Queally and he has informed me that due to their being a wikipedia of the same name people are getting mixed up with who is who, the other Peter Queally is a retired irish sports player and is currently 48 and his wiki shows up on google.

The MMA Peter Queally has told me that he is loosing sponsorships due to this, I please ask you to approve this wiki entry.

Kindest regards, James

PattonJ3 (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PattonJ3. None of the reasons you've given above are reasons for Wikipedia to publish the draft. Wikipedia would consider publishing it only if the notability of the subject had changed since the draft was rejected in July. If Queally is dissatisfied with Google's knowledge panel, he should take that up with Google. Wikipedia has no control over what Google displays there. See https://support.google.com/knowledgepanel/answer/9163198?hl=en for more information on how to work with Google on the issue. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PattonJ3: MMA notability guidelines are at WP:NMMA. Another Bellator fight should satisfy this requirement. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:27, 20 October 2019 review of submission by Jeremy7333


Jeremy7333 (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeremy7333. Wikipedia does not have biographies of people simply because they are musical artists with products for sale, it is not an indiscriminate directory of all musicians. Wikipedia includes biographies of musicians only if they are notable. Most fundamentally, this means if they have been written about at length in independent, reliable, secondary sources such as: CCM Magazine, Complex, HipHopDX, Spin, Vibe, The Wire, and XXL. The draft has been rejected because the subject does not appear to be notable. This may change as his career progresses, so re-examine the topic in a few years, by which time more may have been written about him in the hip hop press. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy7333, Your main issue here is with sourcing. Wikipedia is not usable as a source. The rest of the sources are just links to apple music pages. Those aren't reliable sources that back up the claims. An article about a living person (per the WP:BLP policy) needs to be well sourced. That means reliable and independent sources. Think news outlets like the New York Times. If such sources cannot be found, the subject is just not notable. There are 8 billion living people and only a select few can make it onto Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:46, 20 October 2019 review of draft by Remmyn

I really did not find the reasons shared for declining my publication. First its an oral history of my people that I am making effort to document and above all for posterity and will appreciate a second look or consideration on the subject.

Remmyn (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remmyn, What your draft needs is sources. Currently you appear to have no sources. Sources should take the form of books, newspapers, websites, or other written material. Oral records are not sufficient. Such sources do not have to be English language, but must be published, as well as reliable and independent. If such sources do not exist, then the subject is not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Remmyn. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the information it summarizes comes from published secondary sources. We don't publish oral histories. If you want to document and preserve an oral history, try contacting a local historical society, library, or university in your area. Such organizations often collect such histories and can advise you. Or try an alternative outlet that has different inclusion criteria than Wikipedia.
Here you may use reliable, published, secondary sources (not oral histories) to write an encyclopedia article about a place. If you want to do that, see WikiProject Villages, WikiProject Cities, and WikiProject Nigeria for general advice. See Enugu for a good example of an article about a settlement. It shows the range of sources that can be used. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:08, 20 October 2019 review of submission by Guushaa55

This artical is a usefull for many people to get this information Guushaa55 (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guushaa55, In order for people to have articles written about them, they must be notable. Regular folks usually just aren't notable. For inclusion on Wikipedia, someone needs to have been written about by reliable and independent sources (think they New York Times). If you are writing about yourself, we strongly advise against doing so, as that is a conflict of interest. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:44:03, 20 October 2019 review of submission by TabBytes

Hello Wiki editor , I have submitted a page for review which is about a NGO . The page has been reject . Now, what shall I do. Can I edit and apply for review. I want to tell you that I am not related to the NGO by any means. I just saw on facebook and thought I should make a wiki page about it. But now it is declined. Can I edit it. TabBytes (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TabBytes, I assume you refer to Draft:Solecraft Pvt. Ltd.. In order for this page to be included on Wikipedia it needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. It should present the company from an encyclopedic perspective. As is, the wording is very promotional, using lots of puffed up adjectives and adverbs. It also needs reliable sources. None of the current sources are sufficient. Look for coverage in newspapers, magazines, and non-company related websites. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:28, 20 October 2019 review of submission by 98.143.78.184


98.143.78.184 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please include Leontii Depreradovich who is very much notable in the history of Imperial Russia. His picture hangs in the Winter Palace.

Two questions, is this the same person who is at ? and do you have access to the sources in that article?17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
This person is likely notable. However, the sourcing of the article needs to be improved first. One of the sources is hosted on Lulu.com, which usually means its self published. Try to find a better source. Additional sources are needed in general. I suggest military history books, perhaps written in Russian. If you could find information about the picture that hangs in the Winter Palace, that would be good. If you could find the actual picture, that'd be great too. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

01:33:06, 21 October 2019 review of draft by CherryZY


Hi there, I would like to confirm on the reason of the wiki page being declined before resubmission. Is it the case that more citations are needed? Or are there any other issues with the existing citations? For the existing citations, I have used sources from mainstream articles/websites and written by third parties on the subject.

Thanks!

CherryZY (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any areas for improvement are noted at the top of your draft. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:41, 21 October 2019 review of draft by Nithisj


How do you give a reference to an article when the subject is not mentioned anywhere. For example, if its an event and is happening for the first time, like just say that a church is raised into a basilica, how do you insert a reference? Nithisj (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is you don't. Wikipedia relies on secondary, independent, reliable sources. In your example, the information would not be added because it does not have the required references. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:41:02, 21 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RandomDude912


I wrote an article to express my opinions but for some reason, they declined it.

RandomDude912 (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomDude912: Wikipedia articles are not a place for editors to express opinions. Article content is determined by previously published information rather than the personal beliefs or experiences of editors. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:59:30, 21 October 2019 review of draft by 76.94.82.185


I am requesting help because I have included several legitimate reviews, interviews, sources, news, sources, etc with the article and wondered why it’s been rejected. Please advise and let me know how to correct any and all issues so that the article will be accepted when submitted again. Thank you! 🙏🏻

76.94.82.185 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I included several reliable, theirs party sources when creating this article and these sources have nothing to do with the artist/band that the article is about. Please advise and explain why these sources I included are not being considered here. I can re arrange the article in regards to how it’s written and make sure it’s more of a neutral point of view as requested, however, the sources I’ve included in the article are independent, reliable, third party sources. Thank you.

The reason for the last decline was due to it sounding like an advertisement. That can be fixed by making the wording neutral. To do that, I would probably remove some quotes, and write from a formal perspective befitting an encyclopedia. I would also advise you learn how to use inline citations -- all of the quotes especially need an inline citation. In terms of sources, IMDb is not reliable. For the other sources, I only clicked on one (The CBS los angeles) and had it blocked by my antivirus as a malware site. That...is not a good sign for a source. You need to ensure that all sources are reliable and independent, and not spam. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

01:21:41, 22 October 2019 review of draft by SilviaTRE388


Any help would be appreciated with my article on Laura Liguori. I added more references and am trying to make it less promotional. Please feel free to make any changes or cut or change anything. I appreciate it. I know you all are very busy, and I appreciate your time and help.

SilviaTRE388 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:31, 22 October 2019 review of submission by Tapoleon


Tapoleon (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tapoleon,
For a company to have a Wikipedia article, it needs to meet WP:42 - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
At the moment your article doesn't have this, and a quick search suggests it is unlikely to have it.
This is required so content can be verified - we can't just take the company's word for it. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, articles about blockchain and cryptocurrencies are under general sanctions by Wikipedia. Bkissin (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:38:21, 22 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by JasonVoorheesNaughty



JasonVoorheesNaughty (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JasonVoorheesNaughty, this is probably not the place for requesting undeletion. You should ask at WP:REFUND, where admins that regularly deal with undeletion can look at it. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, please don't go there. Your draft was deleted under criterion G11, i.e. advertisement. Advertisements are not generally undeleted, especially as it seems it was an autobiography, which are also strongly discouraged. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please Undelete

15:35:24, 22 October 2019 review of submission by Xeleos28


The entry has been changed immensely to better fall in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. If rejection is again warranted, please offer constructive advice to help aid in a future revision. Thank you!

[[User:|Xeleos28]] (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xeleos28. The cited sources are as craptastic as ever. If the draft were reviewed again, it would be rejected again and possibly deleted. The good news is that rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable. So you don't have to waste your time revising it, because volunteers do not intend to review it again.
Writing new encyclopedia articles is one of the most difficult tasks a novice editor can undertake. My advice is not to try to write ones about companies that are still in business until you have much more experience as a Wikipedian. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:22, 22 October 2019 review of submission by Joshathilton


I need to add a logo to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motto_by_Hilton, but I don't understand all the options or attribution. I did not personally create the logo, but you can see that it's the official logo for this brand here: https://www.hilton.com/en/motto/

Joshathilton (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While technically you shouldn't be editing the page as you have a blatant conflict of interest and are paid by Hilton, the information around logos can be found here: Wikipedia:Logos Bkissin (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:10, 22 October 2019 review of submission by Akanksa


Akanksa (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akanksa, For any subject to have a Wikipedia article, they must meet WP:42 - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
We can't have any articles that don't meet this, as it would be impossible to verify the contents. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

07:01:00, 23 October 2019 review of submission by Kileyco17

I wanted to ask how to make this more notable. I would like to complete the mall pages for the Megaworld Lifestyle Malls. Other articles of similar length like the SM City Tarlac wikipedia page is posted but is just as notable as the place my article refers to. Thank you! Kileyco17 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


article was declined

08:20:11, 23 October 2019 review of submission by Aidenjohan


Aidenjohan (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades media and communications My article was declined. Can you please say why that happens. I did not wrote any advertisement here. Please check my article and please publish it.

Your draft Draft:Accolades media and communications has been rejected, it is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Aidenjohan, your draft was declined as it didn't meet the notability guidelines for companies. To have an article, a company has have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. (WP:42) If this sourcing doesn't exist, we can't have an article, because it would be impossible to verify the contents. To ensure the contents of the encyclopedia somewhat resemble reality, articles must be verifiable - hence your draft was declined. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 08:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:50, 23 October 2019 review of submission by Shantiwong

Article has been completely re-written and includes citations.Shantiwong (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantiwong, as it has been completely rewritten, I've resubmitted it for review. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also moved it to Draft:Thomas Wardle (pacifist) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shantiwong (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:45, 23 October 2019 review of submission by RakeshK1137


RakeshK1137 (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RakeshK1137, do you have any questions to ask? ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:02, 23 October 2019 review of submission by JasonVoorheesNaughty


JasonVoorheesNaughty (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


JasonVoorheesNaughty (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Jason VoorheesJasonVoorheesNaughty (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Born 21 April, 1992 (27 years old)

Shibuya, Japan

Height 152 cm

Weight 38 kg

Occupation: Student

15:03:30, 23 October 2019 review of submission by MarcoLaudato


MarcoLaudato (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey! I have amended the draft according to the reviewers criticism. In particular, following the suggestion got on the Wikipedia help center, I have found a newspaper article on the research center which is now the main independent reference of the manuscript. Please, let me know if other modifications are needed to suit the Wikipedia standards!

Kind regards, Marco

16:06:45, 23 October 2019 review of submission by Sanavi gupta k


Sanavi gupta k (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=922674076"