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 Playerpage (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 12 October 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


October 6

01:23:34, 6 October 2020 review of submission by 41.202.241.36


41.202.241.36 (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:24, 6 October 2020 review of submission by WikiSantashines

Hello it has been months since i have submitted my article for review. When will it get reviewed? I have corrected everything. WikiSantashines (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiSantashines As noted in the box on your draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,622 pending submissions waiting for review." There are a limited number of editors that review drafts, and reviews are conducted in no particular order. You will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:50, 6 October 2020 review of submission by 64.222.180.90

Pretty notable I think 64.222.180.90 (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:08:05, 6 October 2020 review of submission by Rav Ktoch

I am requesting a re review because the earlier user had added many a non essential and incorrect citations due to which the review got cancelled. I desired to start it fresh from scratch and have given many notable links to the person. Will be highly obliged if it is re reviewed. Rav Ktoch (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rav Ktoch, I'm afraid the gentleman as written fails WP:GNG and the references do nothing whatsoever to aid your case.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 13:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:45, 6 October 2020 review of submission by Earth777


Im not sure why my creation was declined again. i added some references

Earth777 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earth777. The draft does not currently contain any references. Some of your additions were removed for violating copyright. Other information (such as phone numbers) was removed because it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. There is no indication of where the remaining information came from. You should be looking for independent (i.e. not the school's website) reliable sources, and the bulk of any article should come from independent sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:57, 6 October 2020 review of submission by Glammazon


Glammazon (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through some of my old entries,and have corrected the references on this one. Why are they now at the bottom of the page? Glammazon (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glammazon: Inline citations, <ref> description of reference </ref>, belong in the text of the article, immediately after the material they support. They do not belong in the references section when you're editing the page. Generally, the references section should contain the single template {{reflist}}. When the page is displayed, the reflist will cause the inline citations to appear in the references section. If you omit the reflist, all inline citations will appear at the bottom of the page. See Referencing for beginners. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

00:38:55, 7 October 2020 review of draft by Jrt1234


Hi and thanks in advance for your help. I have been working on a page for Johnny Rotella, the musician and songwriter. I added citations as requested, however when I tried to submit the page for review with tags (songs, composer, biography), I was unable to enter a draft title. I discovered there seems to be a page already approved about Johnny Rotella on the German Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I should be trying to update there (I'm not fluent in German), or if it makes sense for me to continue creating the new page.

Jrt1234 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrt1234: You don't need to enter a title when submitting. The reviewer will take care of the title for you when the draft is accepted. Please note that seperate language versions are idfferent projects with different rules. Therefore, the existence of an article in one language cannot be cited as an argument for the existence in a different one. As for the current draft, I am not certain that it meets WP:NPERSON. imdb.com, Discogs and Wikis arent a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:17, 7 October 2020 review of submission by WesternCentral


I am requesting feedback/input on the proper way to submit an article (or stub/sub-section/redirect) for a candidate for a significant California state senate district. I understand the article as-is lacks enough information to be approved, but I would like some guidance on whether:

  1. this article would be accepted after significant expansion (though mostly limited to the context of the election)
  2. this info would be better inserted as a sub-section of another page, or stub
  3. there's very little chance this would be accepted at all
  4. other recommendations...

My original talk on the AFC repeated here:

The page on Wikipedia:Candidates and elections is ~6 years old and related pages are similarly outdated and/or indigestible so I'm unsure of the ideal process/categorization for this submission, including whether a stub, redirect, or sub-section would be more appropriate. I can add a significant amount of additional material/references, albeit minimally outside the scope of the campaign/election, but I wanted to get the ball rolling just to collect more input on the best way to handle this submission. -- WesternCentral (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Examples of additional references:


WesternCentral (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WesternCentral. Candidates who are running for a state legislature might be notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia) for something outside of their campaign (e.g. being a notable sportsperson, entertainer, author, ...), but their candidature does not give them inherent notability.
Every candidate receives some degree of press coverage, proportional to the importance of the office. A frequent argument is that such baseline coverage should be discounted, that it doesn't truly indicate that the person is "worthy of notice", "remarkable", or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". On these and other grounds, articles about candidates are often deleted, merged, or redirected to articles detailing the race in question. There is no consensus as to whether there is a measure of coverage, as a candidate, that can make a candidate notable. For example, there is a biography of Ammar Campa-Najjar, but Theresa Greenfield is a redirect. (There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Theresa Greenfield, but it may be hard to follow for those unfamiliar with Wikipedia's processes).
The least contentious path to follow would be to create Kipp Mueller as a redirect to 2020 California State Senate election#District 21. If Mueller is elected, then he will be considered notable, and the redirect could then be expanded into a biography. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the thorough explanation, Worldbruce. I will just create a redirect for now. -- WesternCentral (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:08, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Rashika Maithani


Rashika Maithani (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I just wanted to ask that why Chahat Aggarwal's profile is getting deleted on wikipedia.

@Rashika Maithani: Wikipedia doesn't have "profiles", Wikipedia has articles on subjects that meet Wikipedia's special meaning of notability, in this case, a noteable person. The draft was deleted two times today, both times for promotion. I am unable to read deleted pages and can therefore not tell you how worse it was. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:20, 7 October 2020 review of draft by Rotideypoc41352


I'm not the article creator; this draft first came to my attention way back in mid-August, when the creator asked for some minor technical help at the Teahouse (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1072 § Need help! How do I move this page into review for creation of a publicly accessible page?). As of my answering of that question, the draft has significant coverage from multiple sources with editorial oversight that are independent of the subject. So I am surprised to see the draft being declined for failing GNG (and tone, but that's a matter of what the sources themselves say...). I open this discussion because Nick Moyes' comment at the linked Teahouse question concurs with my judgement, leading me to wonder what I'm missing. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 07:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:32:06, 7 October 2020 review of submission by SiClaessens

About article BOGDAN & VAN BROECK

I was wondering why you esteem that architectural office BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is not sufficiently notable.

I am happy to provide you with some arguments to try to prove otherwise:

- BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is the architectural office of former Flemish Government Architect Leo Van Broeck ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Government_Architect%7CFlemish Government Architect). The Flemish Government Architect is an important governmental organisation for promoting architectural quality and the built environment in Flanders. Leo Van Broeck was appointed as Flemish Government Architect for 4 years in 2016. He is also involved in the Climate movement. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Van_Broeck

Leo Van Broeck, Founder of BOGDAN & VAN BROECK, has recently been admitted to the Club of Rome (this is not published yet), as soon as it is published we will add this to the wikipediapage.


Founder Oana Bogdan (partner of BOGDAN & VAN BROECK) is a former Secretary of State of Romania (2016-2017) and a much sought-after international speaker in the public debate. She is amongst others a winner of the international architecture competition Europan.


Bureau Bogdan & van Broeck was also nominated for the EU Mies Awards form The EU Prize for Contemporary Architecture in 2018 with the project COOP in Brussels. The EU Mies Awards are considered to be the Oscar of architecture.

BOGDAN & VAN BROECK has previously worked together with the British Architectural company Sergison Bates Architects on an architectural competition.

There is quite some international interest in the architectural office with publications as you can see in the references of the page. I can add more?

I think it is very important not only to have star architects in Wikipedia but also architectural offices who advocate for a qualitative urban space and qualitative architecture.

Since both Leo Van Broeck and Oana Bogdan are very active as partners in the architectural office, I thought it logical to start by adding the office to wikipedia and then add the two founders with a personal page. I planned to add 1 article on the Belgian architecture scene every month. I am, of course, prepared to make adjustments. It would be very nice if you could review this.

SiClaessens (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SiClaessens Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is very promotional in nature("BOGDAN & VAN BROECK is in for solidarity on a global level, born out of hope for a common future that offers new possibilities for mankind"); things like "mission" and "vision" are wholly unencyclopedic as they are impossible to independently verify. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You have only cited things the company has done- when we are looking for more in-depth coverage. For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article because many independent reliable sources have written at length about the history of Ford and it effects on manufacturing and automobiles, not because trade or other publications mention that Ford has released a new model. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you work for or are otherwise associated with this company, you must review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:38:54, 7 October 2020 review of submission by 91.184.79.127


91.184.79.127 (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:30, 7 October 2020 review of submission by MisMurphy


MisMurphy (talk) 15:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MisMurphy You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and fact checked all the points in this article. It warrants review because every fact now has a reference link which can help verify all the information. Glossy language had been removed and the style of the article streamlined and polished.

I appreciate your input and hard work.

Thank you!

MisMurphy (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MisMurphy What we are telling you is that you have essentially posted a resume. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone and their accomplishments; this is an encyclopedia where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You have just told about what Mr. Dadich has done in his life- what we are looking for is what people unaffiliated with him have decided to write about him with in depth coverage. If you work for or represent Mr. Dadich, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to review the paid editing policy and formally declare that status. If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:26, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Anya Kurkina


Hi, thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. I have made significant edits in claims, tone and overall direction of the article. I have disclosed that I was hire by Mr. Dadich's PR representatives to help with improving the article. I have added multiple recourse to prove the claims made in the article. I would really appreciate your help if we could go over together on what is preventing the article from being published.

Thank you. All the best, Anya --Anya Kurkina (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kurkina (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kurkina Please see the discussion above by the person who paid you, whom I have blocked for not disclosing they are Mr. Dadich's PR person. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:06, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Martin Nordstrom


I am not understanding why exactly my article "An Early history of Sprague, Manitoba" does not fit within an acceptable entry on Wikipedia. I have seen many example of this nature that add to the infromation that makes Wikipedia special. Did I submit something wrong, I added references that speak about Sprague and mrs. Emes. What do I need to change?

Martin Martin Nordstrom (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Nordstrom Please see other stuff exists; other poor articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it's possible to get inappropriate articles by us. If you want to point out these other articles, we can address them, we could use the help.
You draft is an essay, and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. We cannot accept a personal interview as a source, only published sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:47, 7 October 2020 review of submission by Xolo500s

This article is about a spotify verified music artist who already has his music on major audio platforms and is a public figure. and refrences updated too

Xolo500s (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xolo500s This person must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Merely having music online is not sufficient, as doing so is not difficult for any person to do. 331dot (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 8

00:05:34, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Stephanie.thompson

Pat Allen is a prominent art therapist in the field of art therapy who has helped pave the way for art therapists such as myself. Her work has influenced the way art therapy is practiced and to exclude her from your website is taking away from the Art Therapy/ Art Therapist page as a whole. I hope you will reconsider your decision. Stephanie.thompson (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie.thompson The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. You offered only primary sources, which do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:30:57, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 65.128.57.17


I wanted to do this as a hobby and show them why is this happneing. 65.128.57.17 (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No sources? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:14:04, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by JBWPpw


Good Day I am working on my first sbmission (Barry Rumack). The inital version was rejected and I corrected the issues that were brought up and resubmitted it in early August. It has been acknowledged as resubmitted but noting has happened since.Is it typical that it takes this long or should I be doing somethign else. I am hesitant to try a second article until I figure out this process.

JBWPpw (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JBWPpw: First of all, please be aware that "rejected" and "declined" have different meanings on AFC context. "declined" means "Eh, this is not yet ready for mainspace, please improve it" while "rejected" means "This cannot be improved to be suitable for mainspace. Please stop wasting everyone's time." Your initial version was declined. Reviewing process takes a while, it is not uncommon that it takes a few weeks. As for the current revision, I am unsure if it meets WP:NPERSON. Imdb.com is not considered a reliable source. While you are waiting, you can theoretically do other stuff. Have a look at the WP:Task Center for ideas. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:51:22, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Philandrews04


Hi, I tried to ad project tags to the draft page called "Origins Science", but the box for "Enter draft page title:" does not have the page called "Origins Science" as an option but it does exist, see the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Origins_Science.

If you could please add this page to the project tags box that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you. Philandrews04 (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Philandrews04: that input box was coded badly. It expects from you that you add the "Draft:"-prefix for things to work, i.e. "Draft:Origins Science". I have already added 1 WikiProject tag for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philandrews04 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:54, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 39.41.15.245


39.41.15.245 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:05:08, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Crystalcommunication


This is practically my first article on this person who's work already features on Wikipedia, but when I am trying to like those work as reference or any other website as reference article why it's not been accepted as reference. Since the person is a filmmaker most of his articles are on websites which are more of PR driven websites, in such case the IMDB is only reliable option left, but unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't even accepts IMDB, in such case how would one can verify the person to satisfy the needs of Wikipedia.

The reason why I am asking this question is because there are 2-3 other interesting people I wanted to write about, they are still beginner and does not have much to talk about compare to the person I am writing about here, for such articles how do we get really deserving people featured on this platform.

Your guidance will me improve my work and will make contribute more frequently. I am quite stuck on this one article for a while to understand how to correct it and should not repeat the same mistake again in future articles. For reference you can google the persons name to understand the available source of information on web space about him, maybe that way you will be able to guide me better that which reference to take and which one to avoid.

Thanks.

Crystalcommunication (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystalcommunication: It's funny you should mention PR when your username happens to match a business that does digital marketing (that or this one), which is a violation of the username policy and suggestive of serious violations of our terms of use. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:54, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Spotify1451


I have a problem submitting my draft to the article. Can you explain to me how to do it. Spotify1451 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify1451, the current state is "Submitted for review" whcih ought to be what you woudl like. Is there any further help you need? Fiddle Faddle 12:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotify1451, no Declined because there are no references.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 12:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:39:46, 8 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Silverline03



Silverline03 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silverline03, Traditionally a help desk is where you ask a question and receive an answer. Perhaps you might like to ask your question? Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:49, 8 October 2020 review of submission by 103.12.120.194

{{Lafc|username=103.12.120.194|ts=13:31:49, 8 October 2020|page= Draft:Amanat Ali (born 1987)


Hi Volunteers and Administrators

First, let me make it clear that i have not been paid and this is voluntary work, else I would have disclosed it if i was getting paid. This artist Draft:Amanat_Ali_(born_1987) won music award and participated in SaReGaMaPa 2007 and was a 2nd runner up. He has sung more than two songs for bollywood movies and launched his debut album in 2009, so he is passing WP:NMUSIC and article is made on neutral point of view. My question is, there are four Amanat Ali (including him) and an editor suggested a date of birth along with his name, but i think instead of a date of birth can editor rename this page to 'Amanat Ali (Pop Singer) or Amanat Ali (Popstar) because he is not a classical singer but Pop Singer and yes he is from the family of Sham Chaurasia gharanaa musician family who has this artists Amanat Ali Khan Ustad Amanat Ali KhanShafqat Amanat Ali as Mr. Amanat Ali is a fourth generation somehow as his father Nazakat Ali was also a notable musician.

I have not seen any musician or artist whose name comes with the date of birth, as three Amanat's Ali are classical singers and this Amanat is a pop singer so the best name should be Amanat Ali (Pop Singer) as suggested by the news references.


103.12.120.194 (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been submitted yust 2 days ago. There are 0 submissions waiting for two months already. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not asking for a review basically but requesting title change information.

--103.12.120.194 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am getting you rightly, you want Amanat Ali (pop singer) to be the title of the mainspace artice after this draft is accepted. I would suggested it be only Amanat Ali (singer). I would've made a draft move to the request but I will leave it on normal AfC process. Thank you ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aafi yes you are right all 4 amanat ali are singers (two died), two are alive one is Shafqat Amanat Ali and second is Amanat Ali, while Shafqat is also a singer but he is a classical singer while this Amanat is a pop singer. so i the (singer) should be ok too.

--103.12.120.194 (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:27, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Samjoka


Samjoka (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what kind of info and reliable sources the reviewer needs to see. The information provided is neutral and factual and would be known in the aggregate only by the creator of this page. In addition the linked articles are verifiable through the links. Please help. Thanks.

Please review WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia articles should be mainly based on what reliable (no user-generated content) independent sources (no interviews or press releases) with some coverage of the subject. This submission's sources seem to fail the independent part. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjoka (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:57, 8 October 2020 review of submission by EmanuelB2019

Hello! I am writing to kindly ask you to re-evaluate publication of the Carmen Harra page. I built this page step by step over the course of six months, during which time I received Sulfurboy and MurielMary's valuable guidance. In the end, 1292simon decided unilaterally that the page was a "promotional article" without arguing his point of view in any way. MurielMary mentioned that she does not share the same opinion about the page being a promotional article. She stated, "I disagree, I don't think this article is promotional. It's actually very factual and objective. However, I don't think that the draft shows sufficient notability for Harra to have an article on WP. Writing books and appearing on TV/radio shows doesn't equal notability." I can understand that we are all subjective but I hope I am not dealing with a case of gender discrimination. I checked the sources that certify notability and I've studied Wikipedia's criteria to publish a page dedicated to a public person. Carmen Harra meets this criteria and I invite you to check as well. Here are some mentions of the name "Carmen Harra" in the databases indicated by Wikipedia to check notability: 1. The New York Times (NYT): "Most editors consider The New York Times generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims." https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/style-change-your-life-boost-your-aura.html 2. Bloomberg (Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Businessweek): "Bloomberg publications, including Bloomberg News and Bloomberg Businessweek, are considered generally reliable for news and business topics. See also: Bloomberg profiles." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-06-18/books-that-matter 3. Fox News: "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG." https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/08/19/how-many-types-of-relationships-are-there/ https://radio.foxnews.com/2016/05/20/how-to-know-if-you-and-your-partner-are-a-perfect-match/ 4. Santa Cruz Sentinel, Volume 148, Number 357, 22 December 2004, Page 17: "Carmen Harra's Jewelry" show at QVC. Indeed, Carmen Harra had her own jewelry line at QVC. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/?a=d&d=SCS20041222.1.17&e=-------en--20--1--txt-txIN-carmen+harra-------1 5. The Hollywood Reporter (THR) "There is consensus that The Hollywood Reporter is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics, including its articles and reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-psychics-are-new-have-520837 6. http://newspapers.digitalnc.org/lccn/2006225405/2016-06-17/ed-1/seq-21.pdf In addition, for the correct evaluation of the page, keep in mind the following aspects: 1. Carmen Harra has written six books that are found in the Library of the American Congress. 2. Carmen Harra appears in the Central American press, in newspapers such as the New York Post, and on television stations such as NBC New York and CBS Los Angeles. 3. Carmen Harra currently hosts her own radio show on an American station named OMTimes Radio. I have browsed many pages published on Wikipedia in recent years, about all kinds of people who have performed in their fields of activity and who deserve to be included in the most important online encyclopedia. In doing so, I noticed that this writer, who is on the same level as other public figures on Wikipedia, does not have a page. There are many similar pages already published about: Romanian beautician Anastasia Soare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Soare Romanian singer Andreea Balan, who has no appearance in the US press and whose career is known only in Romania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Bălan Romanian TV presenter Andreea Esca, whose career does not span in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Esca American psychic Colette Baron-Reid, whose page is devoid of reliable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid Many of the pages I listed do not meet the notability, neutrality, and documentation of the Carmen Harra page. This is why I'm so surprised that this page--which was built according to the moderators' instructions--was rejected for reasons that cannot be objectively argued. Wikipedia also indexes many people who have "stood out" publicly by committing abominable deeds or for being famous by association; in their case, notoriety over notability. But this sort of information is normal to appear in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia like Wikipedia groups information from absolutely all fields of activity. Even though it is normal to be subjective, we must recognize the professional merits of others. I call on the fairplay of the Wikipedia community to apply the same rules to all published pages. The "Carmen Harra" page reached its present form after six months of editing and assistance from moderators who lent their precious time to help correct and verify presentation of information. Thank you and I look forward to your feedback! EmanuelB2019 (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EmanuelB2019, I'm afraid that was tl;dr but please never use other articles as exemplars of why an article should be treated the same way as they are treated.
An approach, and one I dislike, might be to accept the draft and expose it to the will fo the community, but that can be a salutary experienece.
1292simon, Sulfurboy, MurielMary, you all declined or rejected this draft. You probably would wish to be alerted to comment Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Fiddle Faddle.

I strongly dispute the suggestion by EmanuelB2019 that gender discrimination has been a factor in the draft being declined by 3 separate reviewers. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:55, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Tuxxego


hello,

I created an article of Darkscrolls a few months ago. and it was rejected. I edited everything and it looks more like a wikipedia page now. if you can may you review it again?

tuxxego

edit: I have removed the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxxego (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Tuxxego (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxxego, Based solely on the information in your draft I think WP:TOOSOON applies. Notability is not yet established Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:55, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Céideadh


I have been that my article (stub) on Dario Dzamonja needs more references. I understand the reasons for this request. But what I was trying to do here was merely to translate the original Bosnian-language Wikipedia entry and make it readable for native English speakers. I did not planning on adding to the content. Here is the page: https://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_D%C5%BEamonja So I am just wondering how the BS original made it through the review process - since it contains exactly the same set of references as my version. Maybe different standards apply to EN and BS versions of Wikipedia? - if so I understand. Please let me know. Céideadh

Céideadh (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Céideadh, Every language version of Wikipedia has subtly different acceptance/deletion criteria, because each is independent of the others, albeit broadly the same Fiddle Faddle 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:07:28, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Eswnav


Eswnav (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review this page and move to an article.

@Eswnav: you have added exactly 'one source. I am no going to ping @David.moreno72: who rejected the draft if the addition of https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/natpadhigaram-79-review/article8346415.ece/amp/ changes anything about notability. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:10, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Necirvanyousif


Necirvanyousif (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC) I requested that because all my information is correct and this person is very famous in Iraq now because of his songs and he wanted me to add him to Wikipedia[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim made in the article must be sourced to a strong secondary source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 18:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Necirvanyousif: this submission lacks any form of verification. As such, it currently fails WP:BLP and WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:46, 8 October 2020 review of submission by XavierWilliamson101

I wasn't trying to do plagiarism. Can you help me make it not plagiarism??XavierWilliamson101 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)XavierWilliamson101 XavierWilliamson101 (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierWilliamson101: I don't know where you got the idea of the draft being rejected for plagiarims issiues. Draft:Acer_Chromebook_Spin_713 was rejected for failing the purpose of Wikipedia, as we don't host reviews. If you want to make a serious attempt at creating an article about that topic, this guide may help you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:17, 8 October 2020 review of submission by Anya Kurkina


Hi, I was hoping you could provide guidance on how to submit this article for re-assessment since it has been edited. I have disclosed that I was hired to edit it and I would love the community's input on my edits and what I should be fixing further. Thank you for your help.

Best, Anya --Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kurkina (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anya Kurkina The answer has not changed since you asked earlier (see above). 331dot (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:18, 8 October 2020 review of draft by Starrlightmighty5

What should I add to make this acceptable?

Starrlightmighty5 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starrlightmighty5, evidence of notability. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:44, 8 October 2020 review of draft by 66.75.0.28


Why are interviews not considered reliable if they are on reputable news outlets like Bloomberg, fox business, and business insider?

66.75.0.28 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources. We prefer secondary sources for most content, and as it pertains to demonstrating notability, we require independent sources. An interview is dependent on the responses of the interviewee, so it is not independent, and does nothing to assert notability. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 9

01:18:46, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 216.174.68.251


I cannot add more than I have? Do you have further suggestions?

216.174.68.251 (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:33:16, 9 October 2020 review of submission by KellyChristineN


If I say "X was interviewed on Bloomberg" Without giving any more information than that, can I just link the interview on YouTube? There is no specific information or biased information being stated except what you can easily see with your own eyes. Also, if someone is named chairperson of a board, can I not use the primary source from the company? The company should know better than anyone who is on staff. It's simply verifying employment at that point.

THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IN THE SLIGHTEST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of unacceptable sources is a failure condition for a draft. Interviews and company pressers are unacceptable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:42, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47


2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47 (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC) trigonella phoenum graecum:[reply]

06:43:52, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 45.251.65.207


Hi, I am editing the wiki page for my company. The page publish requested was rejected by "notability". I need some advice on how to rewrite the content or improve the quality of the page.

Thanks, Lance


45.251.65.207 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are User:Landzostar and simply forget to log in. Next Problem, if it is your Company, we are definitely in WP:PAID area. As for User:Landzostar/sandbox, what we would need right now evidence of WP:NCORP, i.e. Your WP:THREE best sources by your consideration, and then we can look further. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:30, 9 October 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47


2605:E000:8504:E800:69A0:F175:8AC2:D47 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC) trigonella phoenum graecum:[reply]

Hello, there are no edits from your IP besides the two from today. May I ask which draft you talk about, and what is your question so I can respond to it? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:37, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Ashwin Kumar A P


The person about whom this article is, is a nationally renowned academic in India. He has headed the country's most prestigious Business School (IIM, Bangalore) and was a member of the Yashpal Commission, a Govt of India committee to rejuvenate higher education in the country. Ashwin Kumar A P (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Ashwin Kumar A P[reply]

12:04:08, 9 October 2020 review of draft by Marija W Marinkovic


Hello, I reсeived answer that our article is to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Can you help me what part of informations in our article I must to change?

Marija W Marinkovic (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:39, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Cledd

I'm not sure why the Local 338 RWDSU/UFCW page was rejected, because there are other local unions that have their own Wikipedia page, such as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1199SEIU_United_Healthcare_Workers_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFCW_Local_1776 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEIU_32BJ

I made the appropriate changes based on previous feedback. I was told that there weren't enough references in the article and after I updated it with news articles (because it lacked newsworthiness), there are now too many references. Is there something I can do that would get the page published? I also do not have any financial connection to the organization. Cledd (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cledd, New editors often confuse quantity of references with quality. There is a tightrope to be walked. If a reference fails WP:42 - a summary, not a policy - then it is probably no use.
Once a fact is verified then it is verified.
All we need is for you to show that the entity is notable. Often a smaller, tighter article, with fewer, better references is what is required Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky Sasquatch (game) declined

16:27:12, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Redpanda0310

I want help please. I understand I needed to cite more sources, I just didn't know where to put the in-line citations. Can anybody help me place the citations? Leave a message on my talk page, and I'll send you some possible sources and stuff. :> (The afc in question in Sneaky Sasquatch [Game].) redpanda0310 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC) redpanda0310 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

16:59:41, 9 October 2020 review of submission by Carthex


Carthex (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carthex: Normally, a Help desk is a place where you come when you have a question. So may we start with your question please? Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia. I'm Resubmitting my article for review. I don't know why I keep getting declined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthex (talk • contribs) 12:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Carthex: Ah okay. thats something we can start with. First of all, lets ping @David.moreno72: so he can comment here if he wishes so. Not to the current draft version. The current draft has exactly one non-independent source and therefore currently doesn indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER or WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Victor Schmidt . I will be so glad for the assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carthex (talk • contribs) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous review at Draft:Phycogenics

Editors recreated Draft:Phycogenics after it was previously deleted as a declined stale-draft and also filed a REFUND for the previous content. I revived that old history, so I'm done with admin side of things. I'm leaving it to AFC folks to revive (or not) any previous review/deletion tags from the previous attempt. DMacks (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Timtrent! DMacks (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DMacks, easy enough to do and a pleasure to help. I think the requesting editor has an uphill struggle, and I hope they succeed Fiddle Faddle 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:01, 9 October 2020 review of submission by SpencerEC


SpencerEC (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Requesting a re-review because the subject is the only operating hospital in the U.S. that uses aversion therapy, making it unique. Information based on 3rd party sources. Verbiage is neutral and non-promotional. Purpose of the article is to provide neutral, 3rd party information about aversion therapy techniques for addiction.[reply]

I've took a look at it. Still no evidence of notability, in this case WP:NCORP (AFAIK there are no seperate criteria for hospitals). As for the sources:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Yes seems to be independent Yes Likely historically a reliable paper No Not even two full sentences. Probbably secondary, cant realy determine that.
No Published by the organisation (Yust caóunt the ocurreence of First person pronouns) Yes Likely a reliable source, even if its a scan Yes About two pages No published by the hospital, therefore WP:PRIMARY
Still no evidence of any notability. I haven't looked further. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt, I see the editor has self declared paid editing. and I feel paid editors are very much 'in a class of their own' when it comes to receiving help from volunteer editors. I view them as sufficiently competent to succeed or fail without help because they are paid. Bad ones may need to be assisted to leave, though Fiddle Faddle 07:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:55, 9 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


If I say "X was interviewed on Bloomberg" Without giving any more information than that, can I just link the interview on YouTube? There is no specific information or biased information being stated except what you can easily see with your own eyes. Also, if someone is named chairperson of a board, can I not use the primary source from the company? The company should know better than anyone who is on staff. It's simply verifying employment at that point.

I received a non-answer to this question so I'm asking it again. I AM NOT USING THE INTERVIEW AS EVIDENCE, I'm simply stating that an interview took place and linking it. The person who responded to my question completely glossed over it and I would like a legitimate answer to why I can't simply state a fact.

Thank you for elaborating on your original response.

KellyChristineN (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did give you a legitimate answer: If you cite them, they will likely cause any reviews to fail. Your goal in the drafting phase is to show how the subject is notable, and any sources that don't help with this goal are going to drag the draft down. (We also do not allow external links in the body of the article outside of citations.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 23:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

01:43:27, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


What constitutes an interview? If a subject is quoted in an article, does that count as an interview? Or is it considered a secondary source because the quote was pulled from a primary source?

KellyChristineN (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject is merely quoted and the source otherwise doesn't talk about them in depth, that is not significant enough of coverage to use. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 03:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of sources, none of them are particularly useful. The vast majority are name-drops/sound bites or press releases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KellyChristineN, I note your declaration that you are not a paid editor. Thank you. I have removed the banner.
I have examined the draft and left you a substantive comment upon it which I hope you will allow you to make confident progress Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:05, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA

this page was updated with sources 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added exactly one source. Still no evidence of WP:NARTIST or WP:NCREATIVE, not to mention WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:37, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Shahnawaz rules


I want to delete my Draft page this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lahore_Motorway_City

Please delete it . i am trying from month

Shahnawaz rules (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahnawaz rules: There is no reason to delete the draft. If it remains unedited for six months, it will be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:56, 10 October 2020 review of draft by AlbusHaversham


Hi guys, can someone help? I am new to Wiki and trying to improve articles on Feline Health. I am writing one on Feline urethral obstruction (it's in draft form atm, not submitted) but I want to change the title of the page. How can I do this?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbusHaversham: You may find Your First Article usefull. Your draft currently has exactly zero sources, and therefore fails WP:V. As for changing the title, this would require a move. You can request a specific move at Wikipedia:Requestsed moves. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know it has zero sources! That's why it's a draft and not submitted for review yet. The sources will be added once the text has been written. My question was just about changing the title. Moving it seems a hassle. How can I delete it and start again? AlbusHaversham (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlbusHaversham. On the hassle scale, deletion is exponentially higher than moving. "Deletion" doesn't actually remove anything, it's just an administrator hiding versions from the view of the average person. The right thing to do in the circumstances is to move the draft to a new name. The plain and simple process is to click "Move" (probably on the "More" menu in the upper right), overtype the current title with the new title, enter an explanation in the reason box, and click the "Move Page" button. Not much to it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Worldbruce. That's a lucid and very helpful explanation. The hassle scale explains things perfectly! AlbusHaversham (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:48, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Samjoka


Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. Further several of the links under "notable articles" in the proposed page are from independent well-known publications with the person's name shown on their sites. Thank you.

Samjoka (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its probbably independent, yes, but at least this particular page on newgeography.com doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:01, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020

I have made a lot of changes to the page as suggested by the reviewers. But no reviewer seems to be reviewing it for quite a while. Please could you help(Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:17, 10 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Digimasters.in

{{anchor|17:30:17, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Digimasters.in



Digimasters.in (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:08, 10 October 2020 review of draft by Mysteriumen


What is the best practice in reuse of sources cited in an article about a unique subject. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysteriumen: I am not entirely sure what you mean. Does WP:REFBEGIN help you? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt I see. I could easily plagiarize WP:PLAG an article by “stealing” its sources, or what is the consensus/stance on reuse of sources from a cited article? I have built the draft mostly on reading one source, quoting other sources. If if I include references to sources quoted in an article, I am hiding the fact that my article Draft:CONARC_(Consulta_National_de_Rebeldías_y_Capturas_/_National_Register_of_Fugitives_and_Arrests)_in_Argentina relies heavily on one source. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 18:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriumen, Generally we expect an article to be broadly based, not relying in a single source. My normal recommendation for creating an article is to:
  • Identify references that pass muster. WP:42 is a useful guide
  • From the references, extract the facts that the article requires
  • Organise those facts into a storyboard.
  • Write the article, with the facts cited by broadly based references
Putting the question back to you, is what you are doing/planning congruent with that concept? Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent Thanks. I think I am.
There is the issue of the subject independent sources. Because the subject is a governmental database, the only truly non-independent sources are that of the government operating them, I believe.
There is the issue of the article taking the form of an article about the controversy (is this a big problem? as it is not clear if the subject is notable without the controversy), and what are independent sources of the controversy, as such. Because the subject of the article is mostly mentioned as a controversy. From the top of my search I find four sources that each demand scrutiny. (http://technologyreview.com / http://washingtonpost.com / http://onezero.medium.com / http://hrw.org ) without including any of the sources they quote. Two of the sources quoted another (hrw.org) and at least one quoted the earliest mention of the subject of my article (onezero.medium.com) Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriumen, In that case all you can do is your best work. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:30, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


I found new articles and got rid of the press releases, but I'm just trying to see what I can and can't use. And I can't seem to get a clear answer to this question. So, I'm asking again, does the subject being quoted at all in the article negate the article as an interview? Or does the subject just have to be mentioned multiple times and not quoted ever?

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN, where there is significant comment about the subject in addition to interview quotes, then there is a broader balance. 'Significant' tends to mean 'in excess of three normal sized paragraphs'.
As a personal choice I discourage interview pieces entirely, if the article relies on them. If you have three (see WP:THREE excellent references outside any of the more commented upon interview pieces then my attitude relaxes. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KellyChristineN: It might be easier for people to help you if you'd stop creating multiple discussion threads about the same issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:48, 10 October 2020 review of draft by UKArchaeologist


May I please request a review of the previously-declined draft?


IMPROVEMENTS:

I was advised that the article read like an advertisement:

  • I have made significant NPOV edits with the aim of achieving an encyclopedic tone.

I was advised that the article did not provide sufficient evidence of notability:

  • Added newspaper articles discussing work done by the company. The articles contain significant, independent coverage of John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS), some of which are also reliable, secondary sources.
  • Added reference to reliable academic journals which contain very significant coverage of JMHS. Many pieces in academic journals are primary sources and therefore do not prove notability. However, I have included the Oxoniensia chapter from Hugh Coddington and Richard Oram who are not (and have never been) JMHS employees, who provide a synthesis and interpretation of the work done by JMHS in 2013 (similar chapters appear in many of the more recent Oxoniensia volumes, but not all are available online so I thought this would be a nice one for reference).
  • The other references included in this draft are significant, independent, reliable, AND/OR secondary, and may or may not prove notability (I’ll leave that to you who has more experience than I do).

Thank you for your time and consideration. Regardless of your ultimate decision, any further help/advice/feedback is always appreciated.


UKArchaeologist (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UKArchaeologist I'm sorry, but the draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about the subject and what they do; it must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article not just because they exist and sell cars, it does because multiple independent reliable sources have extensively written about the company and its effects on manufacturing and assembly lines. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:59, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA

updated bio of living person

2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to show that this musician meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable musician. Just linking to their "mixtapes" is not sufficient, as it is not difficult for any person to post their music online. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:25:42, 10 October 2020 review of submission by FrankCarlotta1

I don't understand why this got rejected and I'm looking for assistance. Here was my response to the editor: Draft talk:VING Organic Vodka From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Contested deletion[edit source] This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Ving Vodka is an extremely important spirit to be notated on Wikipedia for the public in regards to how the industry is changing to organic spirits in the alcohol business. Ving has affected the industry globally. As stated in the text, Ving provides education and clean consumption options that didn't exist before. Please reference the articles, awards, and press the brand has garnered. Also, there is no other spirit in the world that is focused on wellness and health in the spirits industry. There are many, many other brands on Wikipedia that have similar or, less education attributes that can clearly be misconstrued as advertisements pages for the brands eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%27s_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goose_(vodka), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Head_Vodka, etc. In addition, it's very important for Wikipedia to be up-to-date on women-owned businesses and how important they are to American economic growth and to inspire young women to start their own businesses. Vonge, LLC, Ving Vodka, and Flo Vinger have been certified by the WBENC, which is the most respected women's business certification. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or address any Wikipedia concerns. ) --FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC) FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:06, 10 October 2020 review of submission by GehrigF

I was wondering why my sandbox page is going to be deleted. It's about me, I'm an artist, and wanted it to be published since I don't have a Wikipedia page about me GehrigF (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GehrigF: See WP:PROMO and WP:MUSICBIO. You are not notable. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

01:44:12, 11 October 2020 review of submission by 96.52.63.203

Hello. Could you please tell me which reference listed is unreliable? Thank you. 96.52.63.203 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:54:41, 11 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Iam randiki


I believe Rev Robert Ngatia is notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. Based in kenya, there are not so many online references. Physical references are available if need be.


Another article worth writing a bout is Bishop Dr Mark Kariuki. He is the general oversea of deliverance church international. He is the General Overseer of Deliverance Church Kenya as well as the former Chairman of Evangelical Alliance of Kenya (EAK). He is the moderator of the inter-religious Council of Kenya and a member of the African Council of Apostles

Iam randiki (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the current draft does not show that. Please also note that Wikipedia's definition of the term notability is a bit different than usual. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:17, 11 October 2020 review of submission by 124.244.183.202


124.244.183.202 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)this is very important[reply]

But it has no sources and Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Please read Your first article for more information. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:26:50, 11 October 2020 review of submission by SONIANKIT135

Sir I lives in Delhi and I know the above named school is a famous school in Delhi, the school has also named in many news channels also and that's why I want to request a re-review. SONIANKIT135 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:21, 11 October 2020 review of submission by SONIANKIT135

Sir you can delete this draft. SONIANKIT135 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:07, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Scientist124

Hi, I would like my recent sandbox article to be reviewed again and accepted because I am not theorising about this supposed event in the article that I submitted.Scientist124 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist124 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed again and tagged for deletion as blatant hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:57, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Ali fattahi project


Ali fattahi project (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to be a successful essayist Can you please help me for the first article? Thankful

15:08:40, 11 October 2020 review of draft by Hobbimasak


Hi, I am a food reviewer in Jakarta, Indonesia who likes to write about F&B cultural development in the region. This is my first post on Wikipedia, not sure about what mistake I made. I am writing about a food site that many Indonesians are currently using, and would think that it will be worth documenting on Wikipedia. Hobbimasak (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbimasak Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of a business or merely telling about a business. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. "Significant coverage" does not include brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, the company website, or other primary sources. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:12, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Steven9102001


Steven9102001 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i tried to make a page for a local compony but it was rejected y maybe you could Willis Talk owners Steven Willis and Sheila Acosta out of Turner Oregon 97392


Willis talk is dedicated to post videos about apps, classic vehicles, Games, travel, exploration, shop hunting,

Steven9102001 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven9102001: Wikipedia only wants articles about companies if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a noteable organisation. None of the sources you added above (which I collapsed) help with that, as they are all user-generated content. Please also note that Wikipedia does not want to promote or "spread the word" about your buissnes, even if its a noble cause. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:22:19, 11 October 2020 review of draft by Fushebjdjwq


Fushebjdjwq (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Your draft is blank. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues(some improper formatting/text placement) and removed a blacklisted link. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:25, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Robertleyva2002


Robertleyva2002 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy is that guy and he is best known for the best thing he is the man

October 12

01:27:30, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 211.245.121.137


Could there be more details on what needs to be fixed in this article so it does not sound like an ad? There isn't any promotional content and the information is cited. In terms of the content, it is also very similar to other similar software: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sketch_(software) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figma_(software) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_XD

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

211.245.121.137 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for suggestions on Article creation

04:29:39, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Editingwork8

I'm interested in writing about Artificial Intelligence. Please suggest some ideas on which I can write. Editingwork8 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editingwork8 Can I interest you in taking part in an article I endeavour? Need to gather the sources for a section on AI technologyDraft:CONARC (Consulta National de Rebeldías y Capturas / National Register of Fugitives and Arrests) in ArgentinaMysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:36, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Playerpage


My draft was rejected with the note "You need to cite secondary sources (such as reviews of the series) to show that it is notable" and a statement that the series is not notable enough for an article. I find this curious as the series is connected to the already-covered "Animated Stories From the Bible," and "Animated Stories from the New Testament," which DO have articles on Wikipedia. The sources used are some of the same as with those series, having been produced by the same production company and creative team. All sources are referenced in the same fashion as in those other Wikipedia articles.

Please help me understand why those sources are sufficient for one article but not for another. Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=983109911"