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 Aayushmamu04 (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 11 May 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


May 5

00:01:07, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Cdg1072


Dear editor,

Concerning this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_contradiction_of_Poetics_chapters_13_and_14

only one editor (out of several) was supportive of the article I submitted, and he suggested what changes he thought would make it sound more objective and free of any synthesizing or opinion that was my own. I incorporated his changes and resubmitted (it had already seen a few previous submissions). But since that one editor, the last two have both tersely stated that the article seems "non-neutral in tone." It has at this point received a "stop" notice, presumably indicating that more advice should be sought before resubmitting, or do not submit again at all.

My article does not, in fact, contain my opinions or original research, and it is neutral. It only contains the opinions of people who are experts on the topic, which is appropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles contain many opinions, but never strictly the opinions of the individuals writing articles. Every opinion mentioned in Wikipedia is mentioned as a fact, the fact that someone holds that particular view of the topic. In other words, many topics covered in Wikipedia lack a single consensus view of the issue, whatever the subject is. Some topics do enjoy a consensus, of course, and perhaps those are easier to report on. But some topics are still under debate, so that multiple views and positions have to be mentioned. This is not against the rules of Wikipedia, on the contrary, many of its articles exhibit this feature.

If the editors are right, then, there must be some expressions in the article or long-winded passages that make it look like it is a new opinion, of the person submitting the article. But that is a distorted view of the article. So to solve the problem, it is necessary to either decide (1) that the topic is too esoteric and obscure for Wikipedia, or not important enough to be found in an encyclopedia. Or (2) Wikipedia editors should try again to state what specific things in the article actually make it look like original research (which it is not). What are those things, so that they can be changed? I personally cannot see anything in the article that strongly gives this impression. It all looks objective and neutral to me.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Cdg1072 (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cdg1072, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Creating a new article is one of the most difficult tasks on wikipedia. I would recommend working on existing articles first to get a better idea of the tone and structure we look for in an article. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been interested in creating a wikipedia article, per se. I have 1000 edits on Wikipedia articles, a few of which are not minor. That experience, while not extensive, has nothing to do with the change of fortune paradox. I only created the article because it is a very notable topic that's 500 years old. I have no idea what you mean, by talking about this article being different from other Wikipeida articles on similar subjects. You suggest looking at other articles in Wikipedia? Well, I've been reading them for 20 years. I could look at other articles, like the one on Theories of Humor, or Theory of Descriptions, forever and not see a difference. It's exactly the same. The tone and structure is exactly the same, and if you could show otherwise, you would. But you can't, and I don't care -- thanks.Cdg1072 (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:07, 5 May 2020 review of draft by Whisperjanes


Is there a way to withdraw an AfC submission that I submitted? Although I think the subject is notable, I don't think it's obvious from the article at the moment and the article as a whole could use more work. I don't want to have a reviewer put in time reviewing it right now and I rather not have it rejected at the moment, since I think it would be good to work on it longer in draftspace.

Also, additional question: If I want to leave a comment on the draft for future reviewers, is there any specific way I should do it? Thank you!

Whisperjanes (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperjanes,  Done If you want to post a comment, I would just continue to do what you've done previously in the comment that you left. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sulfurboy! I wasn't sure if I had to use the comment template that reviewers use or not, so good to know. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:25:30, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Qaasid


The reasons to why my contribution was rejected are vague to me. My request is, as I am new to this and as perhaps this may be my only contribution for a while, that someone either post this for me or explain specifically and explicitly what is still required. If someone can help, that would be awesome; I can provide authentic sources and references and help in any way possible, but I'm just not tech savvy enough to continue. And I find it extraordinary that it hasn't been covered already. I look forward to hearing back from you! Regards

QA (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qaasid, The article you linked to hasn't been submitted, much less reviewed. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:53:46, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Cabotweeps

I'm asking for re-review, this draft article was got deleted in the first and second attempt to publish it , for the reason of sock puppetry. How can we appeal when we already blocked and don't know where to ask assistance or advice what to do. I thought you don't bite newcomers? Why the article is always getting deleted by the same wiki admin? I hope someone can help me on this matter. Thank you and take care.

Cabotweeps (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user Cabotweeps has been blocked as a sock of Fourmilesc (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). GSS 💬 07:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:51, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Joxley Lee


Joxley Lee (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joxley Lee, I'm afraid that this subject is not notable. He might be notable someday, but it appears to be too soon for this particular person. Also, if you know this person/are this person you should probably not be writing the article, as that represents a conflict of interest. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:33, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Gedgmoss

I had feedback on the draft above for Tone, referred to the Wiki guidelines but still require more specific guidance. Gedgmoss (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)GedGedgmoss (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gedgmoss (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:40:10, 5 May 2020 review of draft by Glittershield


Hi, I am looking for help in getting the promotional content on my page removed, this page was speedy deleted for promotional content and then was recovered as I am unsure as to what the promotional content is on my page kindly request editors to help me with the page to make it neutral. Any help or suggestions will be helpfulGlittershield (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glittershield (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glittershield. One view would be that the sentences "In April 2020 this company partnered with Impactguru.com and raised funds to provide meals to the families affected by Covid 19 lockdown in Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Noida and Chennai" and "The company has raised venture capital about $526 million from companies like [long list omitted]", and phrases such as "they started BB Daily to supply milk to the public", and "for the public to order fresh fruits and vegetables and other FMCG(fast-moving consumer goods)" are promotional.
Another way of looking at it is that all of the content is promotional. The mere existence of an article can be promotional if the article shouldn't exist. Allowing an article about Bigbasket would imply that it belongs in an encyclopeia, the way the State Bank of India and BP do, when Bigbasket is nothing like those examples - it is not notable (not suitable for inclusion).
The other articles you've created in your first few months here, Ridaex Technology and Colive are being discussed at Articles for Deletion. This suggests you haven't yet grasped just how difficult it is to create new articles, especially about companies that are still in business. Revisit the topic in 3-5 years. By then, the company may have gone public, and enough may have been written about it to make it notable. That will also give you time to gain experience editing existing articles, experience that you will find valuable when starting new ones. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:12, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Itachisama20

Hi, this is my first draft, and i am still trying to learn my ways around Wikipedia. it would be awesome if you can share some tips for me :) I see you have written that the profile is not notable but he has famous Hollywood clients and has been invited to Oscars and such. Please help me out as to what constitutes as notable.

regards, Itachisama Itachisama20 (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Itachisama20 Notability is not inherited by association with notable people or notable events. The person must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The sources you have do not meet that standard. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:00, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Sarbsinghdhammu


Sarbsinghdhammu (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why my artical is rejected.

Sarbsinghdhammu It was rejected because you have not been shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves; this is an encyclopedia, where articles must show how the subject is notable, as described with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition, writing about one's self is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:13:19, 5 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ayushw143


Aayush Wanjari
Born21/09/2003
Amravati
NationalityIndian
Occupation{{Public Figure|Model|social worker}}

Aayush Wanjari is an Indian Public Figure and personality from Amravati, Maharashtra, India. He is known for his instagram name, ayushw143.


Early life and education

Aayushis a Maharastrian, born on 21 September 2003 in Amravati, Maharashtra to Sunil and Archana Wanjari.


Finally, make sure to click the "Publish changes" button below or your request will be lost!-->}}

13:15:03, 5 May 2020 review of submission by David Selves


I have read the guidance for submission and completely understand the initial rejection points. I have since added far more notable aspects to David Selves'life, including as Deputy Chairman to The London Press Club, which is notably one of the oldest press clubs in the world and one of the very few still in existence. I have added references to everything possible and have made it encyclopaedic and straight facts. The article is certainly meant as a history of his life to-date. Are you able to either review the contact and hopefully publish or offer some advice so that I may amend accordingly.

Thank you for your help.


David Selves (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:41:37, 5 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by LilyRCSRF


Hello, 

   I hope that you are keeping safe and well. I am writing to ask for help with the publication of a Wikipedia page about our charity - The Civil Service Retirement Fellowship (The CSRF), that is a registered UK charity that has been running since 1965. I have been given the feedback that the one I have submitted is 'basically a promotional press release' and that this is the reason it has been rejected. I know that other charities have Wikipedia pages too, so I was wondering if I could ask what can I do to ensure that our charity can have a Wikipedia page? I would very much appreciate your help with this as it would be wonderful to make this happen as we have been trying to get one published since January and Wikipedia is such a great platform. We do have a lot of history and information that I hoped we could share through the article I submitted. However, if including that history makes the page too promotional, I completely understand, and a basic description page about who we are and what we do would be great! Some of our vice presidents and board directors even have existing Wikipedia pages that we could link to?

Thank you so much in advance for any help that you can provide - I really appreciate it and the comments so far.

Stay safe and well. My kindest regards and very best wishes, Lily

LilyRCSRF (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:48:53, 5 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by David Selves


The latest submission has been declined as it feels that I am writing this about David Selves, as himself. However, I am writing this about David Selves from a third person aspect. This is based on my knowledge of David Selves and is in no way intended as a sales publication, just as an encyclopaedic reference to his life. Are you able to give any further advice in order to progress this further? Thanks.

David Selves (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say you are not David Selves, but the account is named "David Selves", this account has been blocked as an impersonation of the real David Selves. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:24, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Rhodewarrick471

I wanted to add alot ore refrences to my page but i struggled a great deal. It was all to confusing.

Rhodewarrick471 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodewarrick471, I assume this refers to Draft:Henry Van Breda. If you're struggling with adding references, please see our guide to referencing. If you have another issue, you'll have to clarify further. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:14, 5 May 2020 review of draft by Gabylandaeta


The information included in the article submitted for revision comes directly from the Miami Symphony Orchestra Biography and records. Can you explain further why was the draft declined? Thank you, Gabylandaeta (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged it for speedy deletion as most of the content has been copied and pasted from https://www.berliner-symphoniker.de/eduardo-marturet/ you have to write content in your own words and we have no interest in what the orchestra's records say, we only report on what independent reliable sources have said about them. Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:19, 5 May 2020 review of submission by MedialadyCLA


I asked how to upload a photo and got a response; I've since uploaded the image and tried to insert its link into the page I created (John Lapinski). It's only appearing as a link, though, and not an image. Is this because it's on some kind of hold, or did I do something wrong? New to Wikipedia. MedialadyCLA (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MedialadyCLA. In this edit the format for the image display was fixed by another editor. Note that one does not use a full URL, only the page name. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:16:12, 5 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by NewProfiles


Why my article is rejected..?

NewProfiles (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewProfiles It was deleted- not just rejected- because it was blatantly promotional. Wikipedia articles are not for merely telling about someone. They must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read my last post to you. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:28:07, 5 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Manirajg


I wish to update the people about myself. I've just put some references for your kind persual. I've addded my Facebook and LinkedIn profiles.

Manirajg (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manirajg Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. Please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about you, in independent reliable sources. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, please use social media. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:38, 5 May 2020 review of submission by Doogierev


Doogierev (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please could you clarify why this article has been declined. Numerous changes have been made, despite the suggestion that no further changes have been made. Moreover, the article is well sourced and the subject is clearly of public interest given the extent of coverage elsewhere. Would be great to know what further changes can be made to improve the article, including the addition of any further sources or content.

May 6

00:53:11, 6 May 2020 review of draft by Amielalcala


Reviewer said that, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." Amielalcala (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC) Amielalcala (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:34:39, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Davidwomackpr

Davidwomackpr (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC) I am a notable figure. If not, What is considered "notable" news stations and Radio shows have mentioned my plans to change entertainment Davidwomackpr (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwomackpr Are you yourself David Womack? (your name is "David Womack PR" as in public relations, suggesting you might not be David). Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Once you meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, of what you have done, not what you will do, independent editors will take note of your career and write about you. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. If you just want to tell the world about yourself and how you will change entertainment, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not allow people to commit PR in Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:20:08, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Silvertopbeauty


Hello, I have supplied better sources that seem to show the notability of Rick Glassman. I'm open to any recommendations and advice to get this article published. Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,

Elliott

Silvertopbeauty (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silvertopbeauty, The reviewer has rejected your article which means they determined there's zero chance of demonstrating notability at this time. I would agree with this rejection, the subject currently fails WP:NACTOR Sulfurboy (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:40, 6 May 2020 review of submission by MrConnieGenius

It is true that a previous link to this book elsewhere on Wikipedia (as just cited in the rejection notice) was removed for being a personal promotional link and not being a bona-fide work of literature however, please know that those reviewers themselves, after actually taking the time to look at the bibliographic details, realized their mistake and reinstated the link. I believe they were so quick to judge primarily due to the "colorful" title of the work as well as the modernist cover photo, both of which defy expectations of what a novel from Iran should look like. It would be more "proper" if the cover had some religious fanatic women dressed in black robes with machine guns but this, whoa, a story about some badass blogger in Iran who talks just like you and me, how can it be?! In fact, this is the very reason I am "promoting" this non-commercial, non-mainstream, alternative work available as a FREE, PDF download. I am trying to overcome stereotypes. The author of the novel is up for the prestigious international Hans Christian Andersen Award (stalled due to Covid-9) yet the general public is unaware such a progressive writer exists precisely because his works are hard to access. Is not Wikipedia's raison d'être to include such works? I would not have been surprised if the article had been rejected due to technical faults (the big publishing houses have a whole staff of tech-savvy experts to promote their books on social media whereas I am just doing the best I can) but I was not expecting that previous rejection (since corrected and accepted) to come back and haunt me. MrConnieGenius (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrConnieGenius, It's weird that, in a message where you claim that your book article isn't promotional, you somehow figure out a way to further promote the book (FREE, PDF download). Unfortunately, your article has been rejected which mean it will not be considered further at this time. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:03:44, 6 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 17u9e


I would like assistance to provide further information about the general topic about the Baron of Loughmoe/Loughmoe castle/Hugh Purcell of Loughmoe and so on. However, it is fairly obscure so when I create an article (except on one occasion) it is declined for "brief dicsussion and not an encyclopediac knowledge", but I have seen stubs on Wikipedia so I was wondering how they are accepted for Articles for creation and the ones I make not.

17u9e (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17u9e, Your article is not only non-notable, but is very poorly soured. I would look at WP:RS for a reference in the future about a reilable sources. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:45, 6 May 2020 review of submission by 27.54.149.1


27.54.149.1 (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:22:54, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Princepratap1234

I don't understand ,how can this article fail notability as she has appeared in many television shows and many music videos.

Prince 09:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Being on a reality show doesn't make you notable. Three editors concur that this subject has zero chance of demonstrating notability at this time. Please do not submit again.Sulfurboy (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:27:43, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Abigail Tetteh


Abigail Tetteh (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My page has been deleted and I cant't access my user sandbox anymore.Meanwhile,I want to create a new article.How do I go about this?

@Abigail Tetteh: Your sandbox should still be available to you. However, the preferred way to submit a draft article is to go via the article wizard or articles for creation and create a new submission in draftspace. Please remember, as previously notified to you, not to use content taken from elswhere. Thank you. Before beginning a new draft I would recommend that you review the guide to creating an article and links at your talk page. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:29, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Princepratap1234

Can't you see whole article or whole FILMOGRAPHY just focusing on reality show How this article is not notable ,he has done web series as lead actor and TV shows besides reality show and what about this article Divya Agarwal,Shehnaaz Kaur Gill , how can this article be notable then . Why different rules for different people.

Prince 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Agarwal was a redirect until a now-blocked sock restored the article content. I've reverted it back to a redirect for now as I don't see how they pass notability. Gill was kept at an AFD discussion in January, you can read the reasons there. Ravensfire (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:03:16, 6 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ronjohn


I would like to see a page created for Moomoo online trading platform by Moomoo Inc. www.moomoo.com Ron John (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronjohn, This isn't the place to make requests for new pages. Also, the subject doesn't look to be notable, so creating a new page for it would be futile. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:06, 6 May 2020 review of submission by Mushusasa


Please give me some instructions so that we can overcome the problem together. The identical page already exists in Serbian and Russian page Mushusasa (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, the business would need to pass the criteria at WP:NCORP to be acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:55, 6 May 2020 review of submission by KennyParis

Hello! I have made changes to the page i have created for the artists Picard Brothers like requested and I'd like to know if my sources are now OK please ? Many thanks for your help.

KennyParis (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:56, 6 May 2020 review of draft by 2601:240:CB00:70B0:75A9:CC5C:150E:BFF1


Hello, I am seeking advice on publishing a page. I have run into issues on my content being too promotional. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines and have included sources from third-parties. Can you please point to which specific items in my copy are too promotional? 2601:240:CB00:70B0:75A9:CC5C:150E:BFF1 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substantive content; there is merely a rule-breaking list of expos they produced, and a similar rule-breaking list of obscure publications they put out, each one with a nice fat spammy URL. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:19:27, 6 May 2020 review of submission by NG AGM

Could you tell me why this article is published on Wikitia.com https://wikitia.com/wiki/Sanusi_Mohammed_Ohiare

Also what does this mean? Can I still publish on wikipedia, if i update the draft? NG AGM (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikitia is a tiny obscure wiki specializing in feel-good content and sourcing articles to videos as well as to text, so their standards are obviously quite different from those of Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let me re-clarify my question. How did the article get on Wikitia? I did not post it on there.

− NG AGM (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NG AGM: Every time you click "Publish changes" on Wikipedia you grant anyone and everyone the right to copy and modify what you've written. Many websites copy content from Wikipedia. Wikitia is evidently one. It is probably set up to copy all content automatically, but no one here knows or cares how or why Wikitia copied the page, because we have no connection to Wikitia. If you want more information about their operations, you should ask on their website. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

00:34:20, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Mr. Bikaneri


Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bikaneri, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:22:48, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Amazingth


Amazingth (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


She is an Actress of CH7HD Thailand and won Miss Southest Asia Tourism Ambassadress 2019 in Malaysia

Neither of those things demonstrate notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:16, 7 May 2020 review of draft by Adockraal


Hello , i keep on editing this article as draft but when i submit it get declined am looking for an assistant now , Thanks Adockraal (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adockraal, What do you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:13:43, 7 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Adockraal


Help me with my draft Articles Anele Mdoda


Adockraal (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adockraal, What did you need help with? Sulfurboy (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

Please remove the notice of speed deletion on Draft:Amit Bhadana (yutuber) made by me. this is not right. This is an Indian YouTuber article which is the most subscribed YouTuber in India. Do not look at this from the perspective of advertising. I am very sad. I gave the correct reference. There is no reason to delete an article that was previously deleted. Whoever has done this may be jealous of India. Only then does one delete that article repeatedly. I request you to keep that article on Wikipedia. Many Indian YouTuber articles are available on Wikipedia. While there are not many good references among them, they are still on Wikipedia. And I have seen many articles which are without reference.


Mary urges you to contribute that article - and keep it on Wikipedia. Because maybe I made a mistake. I request you. Please edit that article. And remove the notice of deletion on it.

Understand my feelings

Draft:Amit Bhadana (yutuber)

Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bikaneri, Accusing a reviewer of prejudice is probably not a good way to seek advice. You can contest the deletion on the talk page, which it looks like you've already done. This is not the venue for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:13:55, 7 May 2020 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1913:909F:6998:1191:CF9D:2B3A


2402:3A80:1913:909F:6998:1191:CF9D:2B3A (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:53, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Temi Akindele

Hi team, I am a Christian musician and I am a verified artist on Spotify and Apple music. I see that other Christian Artists have a wikipedia profile or artile about them whenever you search for them on Google. Some of my fans have asked why I do not have an article on wikipedia so they can know a bit more information about me and that is just what I am trying to do. Can you please advice on how I can go about this?

Regards, Temi Temi Akindele (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @HickoryOughtShirt?4: as the deleting admin but I suspect it was a blatant advertisement. @Temi Akindele: Pleas e note that a Wikipedia article about you is not always desireable. Further, please note that ther is not a single person or organisation out there that have an article about them on Wikipedia, it is Wikipedia that has an article about them (Yes, that's a difference). Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ya sorry Temi Akindele content like His first official single ‘Still God’ is currently making waves and having strong impact all over the world helping God’s children realize the true purpose of serving God. He is passionate about using his gift and talent to praise God in every way doesn't fly here. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:44, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Luke Seeber


Luke Seeber (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Seeber: I see a bunch of problems here:


Thanks. Will try to find some reliable and independent sources. Will take a look at the suggestions as I am not sure how to maintain a neutral point of view as it provides information directly linked to the company without any back-links. Not affiliated with the company, trying to contribute to various topics within my occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Seeber (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:05, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Pt8340

This is more than 50 years old company. It has more 2.5 million customers worldwide. There are lot of coverage about it in independent, credible and reputated newspapers. This article is written fully neutral point of view. If anybody feel any word or sentence in it is promotional or advertisement please tell me I will correct them. This is following every policy and guidelines of Wikipedia. This should be live on Wikipedia's.

Pt8340 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DGG: as the last reviewer, but I suspect it's WP:TOSOON. @Pt8340: Please list your best WP:THREE below. You might want to read the following pages: Wikipedia:Relieable sources WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NCORP and last but not least WP:42. You might also want to fix the broken templates in the draft. If you don't know how to do that, ask me and I might do it for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
since the firm is 50 years old, I doubt TOO SOON applies--the problem that all he references seem either mere notices or press releases--the best, and its very short, seems to be the one from Arabianbusiness.com. completed-to-create-the-uaes-biggest-remittance-house. It can be very difficult getting good sources for firms such as this , but it will never pass a community discussion in this state. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:54, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Chef Abhishek Kumar


Chef Abhishek Kumar (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chef Abhishek Kumar: Your submission currently has zero reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please read WP:42. If you are the subject of the article, please be advised that we strongely discourage autobiographys. Further, I have to tell you that a wikipedia article about oneselves might not be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:49, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Themajidi

Hello! I recently submitted a draft article on Zayn Africa (Musical Artist) with citations which includes interviews from notable Newspapers sources which are independent & secondary in Nigeria, Africa. It got declined. I need your assistance, please check to confirm. Thank you.

Themajidi (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:17, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Jrthpt

This entry presents a theoretical/conceptual model that aids organizations in dealing with and managing complexity. It is a new conceptual model and has been supported in a various publications (refereed and non-refereed). There is no advertisement of any company or product in this entry. This entry is not commercial, especially when compared to a number of currently published wikipedia articles. I could list more that a dozen here as I did in my last entry. This is not a commercial article, it is an article introducing a new conceptual model that has been supported by both industry and academia.

Why not let the community decide? Isn't this what wikipedia is geared toward, letting the public edit and alter as they see fit? Also, if there is a way to edit the submitted article please provide details. I can edit but I have gotten nowhere being redirected to a list of indexes on questions as they have not provided any information related to the comments received in the rejection of the submitted article.

John Jrthpt (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jrthpt You say "why not let the community decide?" the community HAS decided, your draft has been rejected because the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. It also reads as promotional essay see WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTESSAY for more details. Theroadislong (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:24, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Jrthpt

Please respond one section above.

Looking for advice on how to edit the submitted article for approval? Jrthpt (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Please don't open multiple threads. You can use "edit section" next to the section headings to edit a particular section. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:10, 7 May 2020 review of submission by MediaInputOman


unsure of what the problem is - all facts and correct MediaInputOman (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaInputOman (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaInputOman Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume. Please see Your first article for more information. If you work for or represent the subject, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy and the conflict of interest policy. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:19, 7 May 2020 review of submission by DD Business



DD Business (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DD Business, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:27:55, 7 May 2020 review of submission by DD Business

Hey I am Yung 48’s manager. We wanted to make a Wikipedia page for his fans so they can read about him. We wounder why you declined our page. We are the only one who know Yung 48 and we are the one who can write things about him. He is a very popular artist and we thought it would be good if he had a wiki page. DD Business (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DD Business, The article has been rejected which means that a fellow reviewer judged the subject as having no shot of demonstrating notability. I would second this conclusion. Also, as his manager you need to properly disclose as a paid editor. I've posted the applicable information to your talk page. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:30:38, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Queenofboston

I scrupulously followed all editorial advice and provided numerous sources, including secondary independent sources. I see that another post with very few references that does not respect the advise I have been given as reason for rejecting my post has been approved within days of its creation. The post approved is The Europeans (podcast). The subject has less coverage and subsequently less external links and sources. Half of the references are to their own content, at odds with Wikipedia's policy that I have been communicated. I have been asked to review my posts for motives and requirements that were clearly not applied in the case of this new post for The Europeans (podcast). This was a lot of hard work and I take the Wikipedia policy seriously therefore I am very disenchanted to see double standards applied. Queenofboston (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queenofboston, Please see WP:INN. Your article has been rejected which means a fellow reviewer has deemed that there is no shot at demonstrating notability. As such, it will not be considered further. I would recommend in the future not creating articles that you have an apparent WP:COI with Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I fully disclosed the WP:COI and followed the pathway for approval. The article I referred to did not disclose a conflict of interest although it is apparent from timing that it was made in consultation with the subject of the article, if not at the request of the subject of the article. Additionally, I have added more references to evidence WP:INN as requested and beyond what has been provided in approved articles I have used as reference. Please do not punish my content because of my full disclosure and honesty.

17:45:00, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Nebojsa.durmanovic


What exactly was the reason the page wasn't allowed to enter Wikipedia? I thought it had as much as relevant info as the P.S: Fashion page. There aren't enough references online for FUSH d.o.o. as it is. The company is an important company in the scope of Serbian companies and it deserves a Wikipedia page.

Nebojsa.durmanovic (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojsa.durmanovic, Per the decline message: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:31, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Ronaldo1948


When my article on Matthews Southern Comfort was accepted yesterday, it was published as needing two citations in the introductory section. The first I have fixed by rephrasing the wording, the second by providing a reference to the album releases from Discogs. Having done that I am totally unsure of how to delete the Citation Needed maintenance flag. Rather than do something totally erroneous, could I ask an experienced editor who fully understands these things to please do it for me, as I don't really suffiiciently understand this aspect of Wikipedia. Thanks.

Ronaldo1948 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronaldo1948, It still looks like there are entire sections of text without inline cites, so the tag is appropriate. Also, discogs is not considered a reliable source. Please see WP:RS Sulfurboy (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:42, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

As suggested, I have improved the references basis Wikipedia guidelines. Consider the request to kindly re-review the same and help in publishing the article. Didgeri (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didgeri, The article is still primarily sourced by press releases, blackhat seo sources, or are primary interviews. What's left is routine or doesn't show significant coverage. Further, the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
sulfurboy, This is absolutely vague. Could you please highlight which references look like press releases or blackhat SEO sources to you. Moreover please convey which references don't show significant coverage about the subject.

19:04:05, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Manwithcups

I'm wondering what further media sources I should include. I've references full articles about the subject webpage from The Austin Chronicle, BBC Trending and Daily Dot as well as various other articles that mention it in reference to the trend it started. What am I missing? Manwithcups (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manwithcups, Upon second review, I've decided to accept this. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:14, 7 May 2020 review of submission by Eternalstar007


Software companies have been able to list their apps with minimal citations in Wikipedia so users can view their history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PDF_software This is not a comprehensive list of all available applications, and articles on the listed software seem to provide minimal information and do not explain the history of the apps. Yet, my article was considered a press release? Should the article be stripped of its citations to press releases, citing version history? Otherwise, there appears to be some favoritism here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABBYY_FineReader https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF_Studio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF_Expert_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF_Signer

Perhaps the article be revised to match FineReader, PDF Studio or PDF Experts?

Eternalstar007 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternalstar007, Please see WP:INN. If you have issues with other pages, you are welcome to nominate them for deletion or tag them appropriately. Your article was overly promotional and rejected. As such, it will not be considered further at this time. Please in the future do not use Wikipedia for promotion. There are much better outlets for it. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May 8

00:21:43, 8 May 2020 review of draft by 69.112.27.127

I don't understand why the article for Artist, Brian Testa is denied? This is the first of many articles AA2020 is publishing, what can we correct for future article publications?

69.112.27.127 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is AA2020? Are you a PR company? Who is the we in that sentence? You need to properly disclose your connection to the subject. Also, the subject fully fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. You have shown zero WP:SIGCOV of the subject and the group exhibitions they have been a part of are non-notable and not compelling. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:58:42, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Escritorcito333

I deleted the article. Escritorcito333 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:41:26, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Charles Oliver Burns


Charles Oliver Burns (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:53:23, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Alibeeeeeee

I've updated the submission with reputable citations from The West Australian newspaper, Channel 9 News, WA Today, and other additional independent articles but have still had a rejection. Could you please give some examples of how this could be improved?

Alibeeeeeee (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:51, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Akshatvg


This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it just gives a brief overview about a person. Right now the article Akshat Gupta redirects to a TV show which is not really what a user wants. You can check out by Google Searching "Akshat Gupta" and the link https://www.akshatvg.com comes up on the first page. This Wikipedia page was supposed to give details about the same person. If there are any specific changes or additions or deletions you would like me to do, please let me know.

Akshatvg (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akshatvg "Giving a brief overview about a person" is considered promotional on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should not just tell about a person, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Please help me to complete Draft:Amit Bhadana (yutuber) on Wikipedia. If you all support then this work will become easy. I need your help Please help me Mr. Bikaneri (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bikaneri "YouTubers" rarely meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person and also do not usually have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:12, 8 May 2020 review of submission by Ugla'a

Hello, I have totally reworked the article. I only used reliable sources, and ensured that the article was written in a neutral point of view. Ugla'a (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this one !

Request on 08:52:08, 8 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by J.mins


I tried to write in English as it is in the Korean version of Wikipedia and register with the English version of Wikipedia, but I was rejected. The reason for the rejection is that they copied the content on the homepage. However, actually I am the homepage manager, the purpose is to register the contents of the homepage on Wikipedia so that many people can see it. The Korean version is registered, so please let me know why it is rejected to write it in English and register it on the English version of Wikipedia.

J.mins (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J.mins: The reason for rejection was not "that they copied the content on the homepage" (at least not on enwiki, and I'm unable to speak korean). The reason for rejection was that the current draft has zero reliable sources and as such doesn't demonstrate Notability of the subject. The bigger issiue sems to be that the draft was indeed copy & pasted from the homepage. Since I'm not quite sure if this would be a straightforward CSD nomination I only have tagged it with a box. Since you claim to be the homepage manager, you might have a look at donating copyrighted material to Wikipedia, howewer, because of the Notability issiue, this step will probbably be pointless. Further, you want to have a look at WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the required disclosures. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration I have decided to make a CSD nomination. If you are reading this and CSD got declined, consider sending it to MfD. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:48:43, 8 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PaulanerPassau



PaulanerPassau (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:51, 8 May 2020 review of draft by 184.57.172.89


Trying to determine why this keeps being declined when they are many Gaelic Football club pages that have also been published without issue. For example; Chicago Patriots Gaelic Football Club - Wikipedia. How do we ensure that there is equity in terms of how pages are reviewed?

184.57.172.89 (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, a subject must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Other similar subjects meriting articles is irrelevant, see other stuff exists. This is volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:31:58, 8 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by SCopeland97


My draft article was rejected because the reviewer said it was "entirely an advertisement" but the article follows the same format as articles about similar companies that have been published so I do not understand why it was rejected. I was not given any actionable feedback.SCopeland97 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SCopeland97 (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of advertising include "More than 60% of banks world-wide have deployed Amulet Hotkey solutions" and "These partners are leading manufacturers". Theroadislong (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:00, 8 May 2020 review of submission by TalkativeIndividual130

I request help because I want to publish the Sídlisko II article and I don't know what to do. It seems like people don't "wanna see me winning" or something, because there is literally so many articles that are "worse" or just less unsourced than Sídlisko II and they're still up on Wikipedia. Please help. TalkativeIndividual130 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TalkativeIndividual130, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. We are in the process of finding those and fixing them. Just because another article is bad does not mean yours can be bad. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
The reason your article was rejected and then decline was that it was lacking reliable sources to verify its notability. Of the four sources, one is a dictionary definition of concrete, and another is a list of street names. Those are not sources that establish the notability of the subject. If you could provide three quality sources that discussed this housing development, we might be able to write about it. But otherwise, it is not notable nor suitable for inclusion. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah alright. And what's gonna happened with the draft after time? Is it gonna stay a draft forever or will it get deleted? TalkativeIndividual130 (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TalkativeIndividual130: Drafts that haven't been edited for six months are routinely deleted. As the sole author, you can speed the process along by requesting speedy deletion. To do so, add {{db-self}} to the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

00:40:08, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Emilyeeelie117


I am wondering how I should cite a website that I have already cited in my article. For example, the first time I cited it the label was [1], but the second time I cited it, instead of it being labeled [1] again, it was labeled [3]. Emilyeeelie117 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyeeelie117 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilyeeelie117, I believe you can just type <ref name="auto1">. Replace the 1 with the already numbered footnote. If that doesn't work, duplication is fine, it'll be fixed when someone runs reflinks (which fixes that issue). Also, for technical help with stuff like this the WP:TEAHOUSE is probably the best place to go. There you will find some incredibly helpful people who have a lot of experience in helping new users. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:49:39, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Lamacha9617

Hi, big wikipedia fan here. I decided to take a foray into article writing, but my first article was denied. User:Sulfurboy cited that it didn't meet the guidelines for N:PROF -- but I'm confused, because I believe the subject explicitly meets multiple criteria.

N:PROF states that either of the following constitute sufficient notability:

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

The subject of this article both (1) has been named a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - which I believe satisfies N:PROF criterion 3, and (2) has received a medal from NASA sufficiently prestigious as to be authorized as military decoration, which I believe satisfies N:PROF criterion 2.

Am I missing something? Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamacha9617 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamacha9617, Being awarded a medal from the subject's own employer wouldn't be considered particularly prestigious or notable. It's even less notable when you consider it's not even the highest honor NASA can bestow on one of their employees. For fellow status to be considered under prong 3 it needs to be highly selective. In 2015, the year the subject got fellowship, they awarded 346 other people fellowships that year. A society that awards hundreds of fellowships a year wouldn't be considered particularly selective. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, Hmm we're clearly running up against highly subjective definitions of prestige and selectivity here. I understand the issue about an award coming from your own employer, thank you for clarifying. But to bring some numbers to the table, the society that is specifically mentioned in the N:PROF example for prong 3, IEEE, states that up to 0.1% of its members can be named "fellow" in one year. With over 420,000 members, that would mean up to 420 fellows per year - fewer than AAAS named in 2015. Indeed, in 2019 the IEEE elevated 282 members to the level of fellow. So I would argue that your reasoning about hundreds of fellowships precluding selectivity does not hold up, given that the N:PROF example for "highly selective" fellowships itself names hundreds of fellows annually. Lamacha9617 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lamacha9617, Okay, your persistence has paid off. I did some digging and found an old deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pierre Baldi which found being a fellow AAAS as being enough to establish notability. As such, I will be approving the article. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:05, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Vathsalak

Hello, I created a page for Faizal Kottikollon a couple of weeks ago. I was provided feedback that the language used wasn't in line with Wiki language. I have made substantial changes to it and was wondering if this is more in line with the wiki standards? Could you please take a look and advise me please? Thank you!

Vathsalak (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vathsalak, That page is just a full on advert for the subject. It is nothing like the dispassionate, formal and neutral tone required for an article. Nearly every paragraph has some form of puffery or promotional tone. It very well could be your conflict of interest in being a paid editor is making the WP:NPOV issues hard to see. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sulfurboy, I can assure you that there is no payment that is being made for the edit. If it were, I would have definitely disclosed it. The issue is that this is the first time I am making a submission. I will revisit the draft and try to make changes. If there is anything that you could point out in the direction of how I could make this better, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vathsalak (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:26, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Adwerald


Thank you for reviewing my submission. I do not understand the advertising style you are referring and I do not understand as this article is the complement to DAST technic and use the same plan without any reference to commercial or open-source tools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Static_application_security_testing There is no COI to disclose as there is not any.

Adwerald (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:54, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Arbabi4


Hi there, I published a page that thoroughly, and as I stated in my comments that there are some references that could not be obtained due to the country's lack of online coverage.

Arbabi4 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbabi4 Are you writing about yourself? This is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly available. A book or magazine is fine; see WP:CITE for information on citing non-online sources. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:28, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Rightventracleleft


I'm a bit confused as to why the article was rejected. When submitted, it said it would take months for it to be reviewed. Since it's a Superfund site, there are literally several million government records. In this case, there are also news articles, documentaries, much more than pretty much every Superfund site in the country. Since I thought I had months, I only added a few sources.

@Rightventracleleft: Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by revierwers in their (sometimes rare) free time. As such, reviews can indeed take a few months. Howewer, if you are lucky, the Draft may get reviewed on the same day as it was submitted! Therefore, please make sure that your Draft is, apart from minor issiues, ready for mainspace when you submit it. Secondly, your submission was delined, not rejected. Declined means that there is hope that the draft could be ready for mainspace after improvement, while rejection means there is no hope of that. Please add more sources, primarely such that are relieable in Wikipedia sence and independent of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one source listed was one million pages of scientific records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rightventracleleft (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:17, 9 May 2020 review of draft by MichaelHolemans


Hello there, So my article has been declined for not being in a neutral tone, lack of citations, some information was out of the scope of the article, etc... I attempted to fix all these issues and wondered if someone could check and see if it's correct, before I submit it again. Thanks in advance, Michael MichaelHolemans (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:19, 9 May 2020 review of submission by Pardashunas


Pardashunas (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC) I didn't understand. This article is not created by me. Someone created this blog and I see some false information. I opened wiki account and I have edited it. You Can check all sources. It was not a promotional article. I am a journalist.[reply]

Pardashunas It is not a blog, it is a draft of an encyclopedia article. The draft just tells what you have done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable journalist. Please also review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself is not advisable. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:26:35, 9 May 2020 review of draft by Michaeljk2191


Hello,

I do not understand how my sources are not enough for the article on CIMLS to be published. I believe people didn't look at my sources before making this decision. Some of them are only mentioning the topic in passing, but others are full secondary sources about the topic. In particular the legal issues source is entirely about CIMLS. My first source used is also a business profile page, not just a source mentioning it in passing.

Also, there are many similar companies that I modelled this page after who use similar sources to the ones I did, and all of them were approved. Some of their sources are even very outdated or non-existent anymore. Please help me understand.

Here are the example articles I modelled after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoopNet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ComFree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99Acres.com

Michaeljk2191 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other poor quality articles exist, is not a good argument for adding another. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

00:54:51, 10 May 2020 review of draft by GenreandPoliticsComplutence


GenreandPoliticsComplutence (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me with the reviwing of the content and references placement in order to publish the article. Also i would have need some help with image for infobox template. Thank you.

09:37:57, 10 May 2020 review of draft by SahanaPrasad


SahanaPrasad (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC) I am still unsure about the feedback given. What other changes do I need to do[reply]

12:54:44, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Pappukhan2312


Pappu Khan 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pappukhan2312: Wikipedia is not a social media network like Facebook etc. If your only goal here was to create an article about yourself , then I'm afraif that this is the end of the story. You might want to consider alternative outlets. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:19, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Georgeko


Dear Wikipedia,

The reasons given for rejection are extremely broad. In order to consider an appeal or a rewrite, it would be helpful to understand what specific criteria the reviewer relied on to conclude that the article must be rejected.

Thank you.


Georgeko (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Georgeko. To know what was in the reviewer's mind, you really would need to ask the reviewer directly, but I'll try to explain what may have factored into their decision.
Websites under sites.google.com are self-published, without editorial oversight. It is not clear who the author of the cited one is, what their credentials are, or whether they have any reputation for accuracy and fact checking. So it is not a reliable source and should not be cited by the draft. That leaves two sources: a page from a book, and a primary source research article in a journal. The general notability guideline advises that, "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The reviewer indicated that the topic is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone encyclopedia article. They may have reached that conclusion because the draft cites a single secondary source of unclear depth.
Being unsuitable for a stand alone article doesn't mean the topic can't be covered within an article on a broader topic. It might be suitable, for example, to say something about the variety in Penny (Australian coin). How much emphasis to give it there would best be discussed on that article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics.
Rejection is meant to be final, to indicate that reviewers do not intend to review the draft again, no matter how much you revise it. There isn't really an appeal mechanism, because Articles for Creation is an optional process. You are asking for the advice of experienced Wikipedians. If you don't trust that advice, then as long as you don't have a conflict of interest, you're free to create the article directly in mainspace. Of course if the reviewer was correct, it will more likely than not be deleted, but that's the risk you run. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:11, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Deepaksingh21


Deepaksingh21 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepaksingh21: Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. Further, according to the block logs, this page was a self written vanity page. Please note that Wikipedia is not for advertising or "spread the word" about anything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:03, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Shenayahewagama


Android Wedakarayo is a top-level Tech media in Sri Lanka similar to TechRadar, TechCrunch. Therefore I thought it is very useful to publish a Wikipedia article that will be very useful to people who will search about them. if you search them on google as Android Wedakarayo, Android wadakarayo, androidwedakarayo, androidwadakarayo the results will be on the top. Shenayahewagama (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa, Whois, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and YourTube are not reliable sources, you removed my comment from your draft, you asked for advice didn't you?. Theroadislong (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


if the sources are not reliable, then why TechRadar got the approval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechRadar

Shenayahewagama (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StoryJumper draft rejected May 10 2020

Why was it declined? 111.88.15.184 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:44:15, 10 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Helen Puffer Thwait


Hello, I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, and have only completed one full article. I recently submitted a new article for review, and received a message indicating that another article with the same title (created by a different user) is waiting for review. That article was submitted about two months ago and rejected. (Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dewey_Johnson_(musician).) Given that the existing article has not been revised or resubmitted since being rejected, and since the article I am proposing contains the information in the existing article (plus a great deal more), what can I do to move things forward? If the person who created the existing article does not revise and resubmit it, does my article remain in limbo indefinitely? (Here is the link to my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Helen_Puffer_Thwait/Dewey_Johnson_(musician)) Is there any way to communicate with the creator of the existing article in order to ask if they plan to revise it? Many thanks in advance for your help. I apologize for the "newbie" questions! Regards, Helen Helen Puffer Thwait (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should re-submit the draft, your version is far better sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:16:31, 10 May 2020 review of draft by AlbastruMaria



So my article was first declined because it didn't contain enough citations, now it's declined because you can't use social media as reference even though that is where I got most of my information. Guess I'll just use the interviews, because what other people say about the band is better info than what the official band biography on their website says, but I guess yea, not my rules, this will have to do now. Am I wrong for thinking this doesn't make any sense?

I can give you a list of similar pages to the one I want to create that literally have 3 references, of the same kind as mine. I feel like my article is just dismissed because the reviewer is too lazy to actually read and inspect my changes. I would not be so insistent with this if I didn't put so much work in it. I just want to create good content and I feel like I am not taken seriously.

Thank you!

AlbastruMaria (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other inappropriate articles existing does not mean that yours can exist too. See other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. It seems that this band does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. If it does, you need to demonstrate that by providing independent reliable sources to show it, and the article should only summarize what those sources say. Social media and interviews with the band are primary sources and not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:34, 10 May 2020 review of submission by Moonraccoon


This article was rejected for not meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria; however, Dr. Roberts meets #1 by creating the field of commercial content moderation (she is cited on Moderation_system), #2 by winning an EFF Barlow Pioneer Award[1], #3 as a Carnegie Fellow[2], and #7 for her work on commercial content moderation [3] (I have provided additional citations in support of #7 on the article draft). Thanks! Moonraccoon (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraccoon (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Pioneer Awards 2018".
  2. ^ "Carnegie Corporation of New York Names 31 Winners of Andrew Carnegie Fellowships".
  3. ^ Chotiner, Isaac. "The Underworld of Online Content Moderation". The New Yorker.

May 11

01:44:49, 11 May 2020 review of submission by RaisingAHand


Can you give recommendations on a Book's wiki page? I think it's normal to have a page talk about a book, why it's written, and who wrote it. Especially in a case where the book is raising money to help fight a children's disease, I think the more awareness there is the better.

RaisingAHand (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest to find out why this article is a bad fit for wikipedia. You should wait for someone else to naturally document your book/cause. If you hire or direct someone else to create this page, they will need to disclose it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#howtodisclose and of course include other https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research#Forms_of_researchsecondary sources to avoid a summary of primary sources constituting original research. --TZubiri (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:42, 11 May 2020 review of submission by 2400:1A00:BB10:7ECC:8C9C:A47B:F0F0:A463


2400:1A00:BB10:7ECC:8C9C:A47B:F0F0:A463 (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:24, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Molee4real

Hello, can I know why my article was rejected? because the reason is the information is not notable, while it is, I have provided even ref and I removed ref that are not needed as you asked, okay. so can you help what am supposed to do. Molee4real (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:38:38, 11 May 2020 review of submission by TZubiri


TZubiri (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TZubiri, What do you mean you'll be publishing it soon? If you mean you're going to move it out of draftspace, I must caution that the article is likely to be deleted or returned to draft. If you mean you're going to submit it back to the AfC process, it will probably get declined. The issue is that the subject does not appear to be notable, i.e. he's just an average dude, and thus we have no special reason to write about him. Also, the sourcing is insufficient. His own blog/website should not be used as a source, as it is not independent of the subject. Unless you can find multiple reliable and independent sources that discuss him in more than just passing mention, we cannot write about him. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm going to be publishing this article soon. If someone has specific criticisim, please let me know.

07:12:50, 11 May 2020 review of submission by 223.176.67.2

Eumat114 please help me so that my article can be approved . 223.176.67.2 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:24:34, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Romario mohanty

Please help me so that my article can be approved Romario mohanty (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romario mohanty I think you have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where articles about people must summarize what independent reliable sources like the news say with significant coverage say about people shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. It appears that you do not meet that definition, and no amount of editing can confer notability on you. It depends on the sources. In addition, please review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself is strongly discouraged here. A Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable as well. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:16, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Ankit Krs Pandey

Ankit Kumar Pandey is a inspiration for other player and a great personality through there biography i want to show the world to get inspired by his dedication. If there is any problem and error do let me know because i don't want delete this article and i can correct the error that are found by youAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of your 18 sources are reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankit Krs Pandey Are you related to this person? If so, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Pandey does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, as the sources you provided are not independent reliable sources. If so, no amount of editing can change that. If you just want to tell the world about him and his good work, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in this biography i had done something wrong like sources, codes or else please help meAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Krs Pandey We can't help you provide sources that don't exist. Please review my comment above. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sir, i have try so many time but then after giving my full potential and i am unable to submit it properly evrey time, i recorrect and checked the error but it doesn't seems working and declined again and again by wikipedia could you please suggest measures for these after opening tutorials i am unable to understand the matter within it so please help me out humble requestAnkit Krs Pandey (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Krs Pandey, Your article had no proper references or inline citations. It also was informal and had [[WP:NPOV[[. The article has been rejected, which means that a fellow editor felt there is no chance that notability can be established. I would second this opinion. As such, your article will not be considered further.

08:42:58, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Missinfinite19

I would like a re-review as I have improved my article and added multiple sources to my work Missinfinite19 (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no improvement, there are still zero reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:07, 11 May 2020 review of draft by SylviaatRSG


I wonder if you would kindly look at the article for creation submission I wrote a few weeks ago. I have tried twice communicating with the editor that rejected the submission, and have gotten no response.

I believe a careful look at these three sources will demonstrate the notability of the subject:

https://www.michigandaily.com/section/soccer/michigan-alum-mission-popularize-soccer-states

https://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2018/10/01/daniel-sillman-relevents-29-year-old-ceo-has-bold.html

https://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/en/Journal/Issues/2019/03/25/Forty%20Under%2040/Sillman.aspx

The Michigan Daily source is exclusively about Sillman. Yes, it has some quotes from him, but those quotes do not make up the majority of the source. The Bizjournals source is also entirely about Sillman, with just a small number of quotes from him, especially compared to the length of the entire source. The source also contains quotes from other people that know Sillman, but not that many directly from him. The Sports Business Daily is a reliable source. Although it is short, it is entirely about Sillman, and only quotes him at the end with two short statements.

When these three sources are taken together, I believe there is a good case to be made that they constitute significant coverage from reliable sources. Please take another look. I hope you will agree with me that Daniel Sillman should have an article on Wikipedia. SylviaatRSG (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SylviaatRSG, None of those sources are compelling. The first source is a student newspaper of a school that the subject is an alumni of. The second is bizjournals which has questionable reliability as many of their stories are sourced from press releases and in all likelihood it's paid for coverage. The third source I'm not familiar with, but a sports business publication has a very narrowly tailored audience and wouldn't do much in the way of demonstrating notability on a wider level. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:59, 11 May 2020 review of draft by Matejmitev13


Hello,

I want to publish my first article and I have already made (what I think) is a good draft. The article is about Flavia Weedn, a famous US artist, illustrator, and poet. I am new to Wikipedia and many things are quite confusing for me in regard to the complicated processes.

I am writing here to ask for help on how I can improve my draft article? I would like some advice from experienced editors, I appreciate it!

Thank you. Matejmitev13 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:07, 11 May 2020 review of draft by Bouhlechat


Bouhlechat (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouhlechat: You can resubmit drafts by clicking on the big blue button labeled submit. I see that you made substantial additions to the Draft.. I'm going to ping @Robert McClenon: as the last reviewer if he has something I missed, but from what I see now it looks acceptable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:49, 11 May 2020 review of submission by 93.42.65.231

Burningwave Core
RepositoryBurningwave Core
Written inJava
TypeFramework for building frameworks
LicenseMIT License
Websitewww.burningwave.org

Burningwave Core is a fully indipendent, free and open source Java framework for building frameworks with functionality of:

  • criteria based classes search
  • scanning file system
  • generating classes during runtime
  • executing stringified code
  • facilitating the use of reflection

References

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

References

  1. ^ Burningwave Core official source releases
  2. ^ Burningwave Core official binary releases
  3. ^ Burningwave official forum
  4. ^ Stoffer Khan: Generating "Classes at Runtime and Invoking Their Methods With and Without the Use of Reflection"
  5. ^ Pink Academy: "Java Masters Generate their Classes at Runtime"
  6. ^ Edvard Orsalian: "Burningwave Core: a Java frameworks building library with an original classpath scan engine"

93.42.65.231 (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not explain notability. Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joaquim Guttierrez: Websites dzone.com, medium.com, and quora.com contain user-generated content, so they are not reliable sources. The remaining three sources are not independent of Burningwave Core. There are no independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the topic, so it is not notable, and Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:07, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Hope samantha

Added additional recent source from Fitch Ratings in the history section. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/insurance/fitch-affirms-cno-financial-group-ratings-outlook-stable-on-coronavirus-review-21-04-2020

Hope samantha (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope samantha Your draft has been rejected after several declines, meaning that there is little to no chance it can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. Please see the comments left by reviewers on the draft. Adding a Fitch Rating is not the significant coverage in reliable sources needed. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:39:17, 11 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Akaawase Teryima


I need guidance on content creation on Wikipedia.

Bernard Akaawase (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernard Akaawase: That draft was deleted as is was untouched for six months. the "Draft"-Namespace is not for the infinite hosting of material found unsiutable for the encyclopedia. I are no administrator and can't see what was in there, aparently you didn't submit it for review. You can submit draft's for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to it while they are still existing. The good news I have for you that pages that are deleted from the Wiki are not technically deleted from the harddrive of the Servers Wiikipedia is running on, they are only marked as deleted in the underlying datebase, and as such, can be undeleted. If you want to have this draft undeleted, go to WP:REFUND/G13 or simply ask here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:50, 11 May 2020 review of submission by Aayushmamu04


Aayushmamu04 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=956122628"