Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 21

04:20:05, 21 October 2020 review of draft by Aidspored

Hi there, can someone help me understand why this article was rejected. Trying to understand the reason & fix the issues. I'm kinda new here so any advice is highly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Aidspored (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aidspored, Review WP:NACTOR. Snowycats (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:02:03, 21 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Amirnofit


I received a rejection of "Michal Alberstein" and revised according to the general comments - not enough citations and not a neutral tone. I changed the tone and structure and added numerous citations (over 41 citations from journals and websites), and it was rejected again with the same general comments. I would be grateful for more specific advice on how to fit the text to Wikipedia. Many thanks, Nofit Amir


Amirnofit (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 41 citations, which three speak about Michal Alberstein, her life, her career, etc. in great detail? In order for an article subject to be considered notable by the Wikipedia community, we require that an article subject receive significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This means that for any article subject, we should expect to find multiple sources that are interested enough in Alberstein to have written detailed content about her personally, with little to no participation by her (i.e. not an interview, not a press release, not content written by her or by those close to her.) Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:00:46, 21 October 2020 review of submission by 112.198.11.115


112.198.11.115 (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:02:23, 21 October 2020 review of draft by Nairji


The article created for Sarva Yoga which is now at Draft:Sarva Yoga, was moved because of inadequate citations. There has been decent press coverage, directly of the subject as well as independently which was included as citations.

Would require help in improving the citations and to publish for review.

Kindly guide and help.

Nairji (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:29, 21 October 2020 review of draft by Icleep


Hi, I have written a draft biographical article for a British technologist called Kavita Kapoor. It is located in my sandbox at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Icleep/sandbox. I would like help on optimizing its layout, tags and title to assist the draft review process.

Icleep (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:09, 21 October 2020 review of draft by Kingsl1.0


The drop down arrow and the tab is not working for the subtopic "Early life" in this article. Can anyone please help me to fix it?

Kingsl1.0 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Your draft has more existential issues than that - a lot of claims in it are unsourced. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:39, 21 October 2020 review of submission by 125aps

This is my first submission of a new page, and I need assistance with publishing images while I am a copyright holder of all of them. 125aps (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@125aps: Hi, I just left a message on your talk page. If I'm not mistaken, you are the subject of the article? And it looks like you have submitted copyright statements for all 5 images you uploaded. Thanks for doing that. The following images, your paintings, should be fine:
The 2016 photograph might be an issue since copyright usually belongs to the photographer, not the subject shown in the photo:
I've cleaned up the image description files and added the {{OTRS pending}} tag. Oh, and please be careful using the {{ }} brackets. They only work with preexisting templates. If you type words in them, they won't show the way you want. Hope that helps Ytoyoda (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:10, 21 October 2020 review of submission by Sudhindra Athreya


I had added more details to the article. Please review.

Sudhindra Athreya (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You have no sources, and none of the external links in the article can be used as sources. Have newspapers, news magazines, and/or industrial journals written about him in some depth? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:35, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sudhindra Athreya, since you are obviously related to this kid, you may lack the objectivity required to edit in this subject area, as you have a clear conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a social network site, nor is it a place to build monuments for people or pedestalise people. We care about notable people, and notability is established when you can demonstrate that multiple reliable independent sources have written about the subject in depth, without any provocation or participation from the subject or their relatives i.e. no interviews or press releases. I'm sure you can understand that winning "first place in cute participants" in a "fancy dress competition" would not make someone deserving of an encyclopedia article, nor would playing with LEGOs or singing songs and drawing. These all sound like run-of-the-mill activities for children. If you can demonstrate that the subject meets our general notability guideline, then we can re-address this. Until then, you are strongly discouraged from editing about this person, as your conflict of interest presents a significant ethical concern. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:08, 21 October 2020 review of submission by Ellegriffin

I edited this article to include information as to why an entry on Brandon Fugal is notable. Please re-review. Ellegriffin (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellegriffin: Interviews cannot be used to demonstrate notability, as we require independent sources, and an interview is dependent on the responses of the interviewee. Please see WP:GNG. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@cyphoidbomb I removed that source.

October 22

Request on 01:31:51, 22 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by MEEM WEAVER


Hi I got a message on my user talk page saying my new draft article needs more reliable sources, can someone on here review it and give more specifics please. I don't know whether to expand with new information but there isn't a lot of information on the band out there and I don't know where else to get info from besides Allmusic. I have always considered Allmusic a pretty reputable site, they have editors there who know music and the other page I cited was written by one of the band members in their biography section on their profile. The page is Draft:Numbs I hope this link works. Thanks in advance

MEEM WEAVER (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:42, 22 October 2020 review of draft by Oficialtowhid


Review these articles -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashish_Chanchlani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nischay_Malhan


Oficialtowhid (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.232.236.45 (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. What is your connexion to the editors who were behind Ashish Chanchlani and Ashish A. Chanchlani? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:30, 22 October 2020 review of submission by Sudhindra Athreya


Additional details added for the young talent.

Sudhindra Athreya (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You haven't changed a single thing since the last time I looked at it, and as such it still violates our biographical policies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:44, 22 October 2020 review of submission by Pratsmusings


Please guide me on how to get the page accepted.

Pratsmusings (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moot as draft is deleted and user has been shown the door. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:51, 22 October 2020 review of submission by Leon M-Zack


Leon M-Zack (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leon M-Zack: It appears that you have (attempted to) write an article about yourself. While autobiographys are not strictly forbidden, they are strongely discouraged. Pleasse be aware that a Wikipedia article about yourself may not nessesarely be desireable. This article does not meet WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:16:14, 22 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by LaundryPizza03


It was declined due to NPOV problems; specifically, that it reads like an essay. I need help correcting this; specifically, how should the causes and impacts be summarized neutrally? I'm pretty sure this topic is notable.

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:27, 22 October 2020 review of submission by Maciek X

Hello, my draft was checked and I canceled the categories before publishing how I understand from the comments, is it all, and should I wait now for publishing? Thanks in advance for your feedback!

Maciek X (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maciek X: Pages in draft namespace dont belong into categories for content space pages. Therefore, a bot has correctly converted the categorisations of the pages into links. It is unnessesary to remove them all together. I will readd them now. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:33:28, 22 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Stoptosmellroses


Dear Reviewer, I made significant changes and resubmitted my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guo_Shiyou. I was told that it would take 3 months for the second review. Is there a way to get feedback a little sooner? The first review pointed out that I needed reliable sources. I added several sources such as Baidu which is China's Wikipedia. I also added links to people who reviewed the works of the historian I wrote about. All the reviewers I mentioned are Chinese academics who have a solid reputation. All the works are published in reputable journals by reputable publishers. Mr. Guo's works have not yet been translated into English but he has readers in American universities and institutions on China studies. I modeled my draft on a wikipedia article on Mr. Guo's fellow historian in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zi_Zhongyun. Any advice to improve my draft is appreciated.

Stoptosmellroses (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:34:17, 22 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Lagardet


My draft has been declined several times and since my last changes I did not get any answer. This has been nearly 6 months now. I fear the draft to be moved. Lagardet (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lagardet: I'm not sure what answer you were looking to get. It looks like here you asked a rhetorical question in the body of your edit summary, which would not allow anybody to respond to you. We usually discuss things on talk pages. I see you've recently resubmitted the draft, so perhaps you'll receive feedback in due time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:35:23, 22 October 2020 review of draft by JimZBrewer


The article Draft: David A. Deitch was declined on Aug. 1 by Editor Eternal Shadow. I understand that there are many articles to review, but it has now been nearly three months since I resubmitted and it has not been re-reviewed. Is there some way I can expedite the process? JimZBrewer (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:31, 22 October 2020 review of draft by R2T2M


Thank you for providing an avenue for the AfC help desk. I have recently submitted Draft:Air_Squared for review and have received a "reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" rejection. While I understand this is not the place to argue what should or should not be removed before resubmission, I am concerned that there were no details provided in the rejection. Specifically, apart from an external link to Air Squared's website in the Infobox and a link to Air Squared's Youtube channel, 26 of the 27 references meet Wikipedia's range of independent, reliable, published sources. If the concern in notability, other MOXIE partners including Ceramatec, Inc are represented on Wikipedia and I would argue that the commercial space industry should be represented on Wikipedia.

May I ask if the best course of action would be to edit the draft to make it read more like an encyclopedia article regardless of feedback or should I reach out to the user who provided the rejection for further details? Thank you for your time and support, my apologies for being unfamiliar in submitting my first Wikipedia article. R2T2M (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)R2T2M[reply]

R2T2M (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone says your draft reads like an ad, it has very little, if anything, to do with the sources and everything with how the article itself is written. Sourcing is where you get your facts, neutrality is how you are supposed to present them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

09:40:12, 23 October 2020 review of draft by Collingwood Supporter3


I need help with my references and citations Can you help? I Collingwood Supporter3 (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Collingwood Supporter3: I have attempted to fix them. The most part is done, though I have not suceeded in every case. You may want to look at my Changes before attempting to fix the rest. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:16, 23 October 2020 review of submission by Sudhindra Athreya


I'm not able to upload the correct picture. The one uploaded is partially done and I would like to change it. Please suggest.

Sudhindra Athreya (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudhindra Athreya: Please do not write an article about yourself. Its not forbidden, but the count of persons I have seen writing their autobiography sucessfully in a suitable way is zero. Next, if You are affilated with the person depicted in this image, I have another concern: Wikipedia is not a social Network like Facebook or Instagram.
I am not able to read deleted pages and therefore can't give you advice on Draft:Samarth_Athreya, but its extremely unlikely that this topic meets WP:BLP, let alone WP:NPERSON. The former is especially important when writing about minors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has beed rejected again, the topic is not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:22, 23 October 2020 review of submission by Blackbearpr


Hi guys im just wondering if you can help me and give me some advice on why my page i wrote about the professional boxer was not accepted? if anything im asking for some help and advice on what i need to add into it to make it acceptable for wikipedia

Blackbearpr (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We do not permit official or shared accounts, nor (as you have found out) do we tolerate mercenary editors who do not explain their circumstances. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:18, 23 October 2020 review of submission by OWC12345

My page was declined because of the sources. I have gathered news articles from trade publications as well as local media publications so I am unsure why this information was declined. OWC12345 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to the sourcing. Company profiles (Bloomberg) are not reliable sources. Anything written by Forbes contributors is useless as a source. Press releases (nationalmortgageprofessional) are not reliable sources. Trivial mentions (Union Recorder) are not reliable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:27:28, 23 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jfritter


Hi there! I don't quite understand why my article for submission has been rejected twice now. It's about a film sound designer named Sean Garnhart, and the reason it was rejected was because it apparently doesn't show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article through published, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I included sources from credible entities like the Emmys (which he has won one of), Motion Picture Editors Guild, and the British Film Institute. I have seen other pages that have been published using similar award entities as sources - Skip Lievsay and Ren Klyce can be used as examples. I do notice the main difference is that those pages have references to sources from the Oscars - but my question would be: does a sound designer really need to have been nominated for an Oscar to be qualified to have a Wikipedia page? In my opinion, that should not be the only metric that would make a sound designer credible/notable. The Emmys are a similarly large award, as are awards from the Motion Picture Editors Guild and BFI.

I would really appreciate any and all guidance here, and thank you in advance!Jfritter (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jfritter (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has NOT been rejected twice, it has been declined, there is a subtle difference, being declined means there is hope that it can be accepted. you need to find some independent reliable sources, the two sources you have at the moment are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the prompt reply and the clarification of terminology! I don't quite understand how the Emmys and BFI aren't independent resources, though, especially since the Oscars are considered independent. I would consider the Emmys and BFI to be "news media", which would qualify them as independent sources according to this page. Would it be possible for you to explain to me what prevents these sources from being considered independent?Jfritter (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:51, 23 October 2020 review of submission by Chukwu3buka01


Chukwu3buka01 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my article disallowed?

My references are legit. You can visit the pages to confirm the authenticity.

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Inline citations are expected to be in the text proper, used to verify claims the article makes. Search results are not acceptable sources. Trivial mentions (name-drops and sound bites) are not acceptable sources. Two of your sources 404 out. Three of your sources (would be four if one of them weren't a 404) are the exact same article, which makes all but one of those useless and implies a press release. Your sources are, frankly, not up to par. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:53:50, 23 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Khadar shah

Khadar shah (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khadar shah You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

12:46:20, 24 October 2020 review of submission by 许木23

 Chinese VC Yunqi Partners targets to raise $275m for third fund

许木23 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@许木23: What is your question? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what is "This topic is not sufficiently notable "? and what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 许木23 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:01, 24 October 2020 review of draft by 许木23


significant？he was included in Forbes’ China Midas 100 list in 2017, 2018and 2019。and  the subject in  https://www.forbeschina.com/entrepreneur/46520

许木23 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@许木23: The decline notice says that you need to demonstrate that the subject has received "significant coverage". If you read our general notability guidelines, they will explain what "significant coverage" means. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the topic has 6 references in reliable sources that are independent of the subject--许木23 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:20:00, 24 October 2020 review of draft by Magitroopa


Would there be a way of getting this draft merged or deleted altogether? I'm never the best with where/how to request things for deletion/merge. Seems like Mcnickleguy57 created it on October 18, and it was later moved to draftspace. There is already a draft at Draft:Santiago of the Seas that has been around since July, so I see no reason for this second draft to exist. Magitroopa (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magitroopa, if you think the two drafts should be merged, go ahead and do that. If you believe it should be deleted, a request to delete a draft should be made at miscellany for deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

Request on 00:08:40, 25 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Bhumi2tandon



Bhumi2tandon (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir My article was vindictively and maliciously declined by a reviewer.

Please go through my coversation below with the previous reviewer and you will understand why I was in no position to fix the problem.

Copy of my conversation:-

"Please see a copy of my conversation with him below.

"The POV forks have already been fixed please check. Actually this is my first wiki page submission so I guess every place has its own style and language in which content is required to be written. Be it newspaper or websites :))

You cannot "fix" it. The whole thing is a POV fork. The answer was "no", and will remain "no" no matter how many times you repeat the question. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that but a gentler tone would be appreciated. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr Seraphimblade At 14:20 I objected to a high toned message from you and requested you to use a gentler tone and within 20 minutes of my message you went ahead and declined my draft page submission and arbitrarily closed a discussion that was posted on the page with respect to the merger of the page which was started today morning only and in which only you had given your opinion so far. The page was supposed to remain open for atleast seven days as per guidelines. I find this act on your behalf highly vindictive and prejudiced. Let me remind you that while Wikipedia grants some discretionary powers such vindictive acts are not covered by that.

Had you deleted my page the first time you went through it and thought it to be a POV fork I would not have objected but the action was done within 20 minutes of my submitting a message respectfully objecting to you high toned message this is clearly a vindictive act and highly objectionable behaviour for a place like wikipedia. Let me remind you no one not even you OWN the Wikipedia and small editors like us are the reason the Wikipedia exists. I would really appreciate if you stay away from the draft page now."

How can I fix the reason for decline when the page was declined vindictively and arbitrarily after removing a discussion posted in the group with respect to its merger that had been opened in morning only and in which only the reviewer had given his opinion so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhumi2tandon: Wikipedians use a lot of jargon and it is possible you've not been made aware did not read what we mean by 'POV fork'. If you take a look at WP:POVFORK you'll understand that Seraphimblade meant that there are two existing articles about the bridge which talk about the origin theories and the canal project, which you could expand. A 'point of view fork' means that rather than expanding those, you perhaps don't like those articles and would rather have a new one which is written in a way that promotes your particular view. So when you say 'the POV forks have already been fixed please check', anyone who checks will see that the issue has not been fixed.
There are two processes here, one to do with achieving consensus about merging some of the content you've written into those other articles, and the other about whether right now the draft you've written should be converted into an article. These are related issues, but the decision of not just Seraphimblade but other very experienced editors is that the draft should not currently be made into an article, hence the decline. If in a few days, the consensus is that there is no merit in merging the articles then the question of a stand-alone article about the controversies can be reviewed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhumi2tandon: Above, you claim that At 14:20 I objected to a high toned message from [Seraphimblade] [...] and within 20 minutes of my message [Seraphimblade] went ahead and declined my draft page submission. You don't remember the sequence of events correctly, however. Seraphimblade declined the draft at 12:40 UTC, and after that you posted to their user talk page, and you had a short discussion including the "objection" post you refer to above, at 14:20 UTC. The decline was not caused by your discussion – the discussion was not started until after the decline. Presumably you were misled by the fact that the time stamps in discussions are unified to show UTC time, unlike the time stamps you can see in the article history (which will show whatever time you have set in your preferences). --bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:58, 25 October 2020 review of draft by Aminuddinshroff


Hi Editors, I have created an article to be published on Wikipedia for Moin-ud-din, the screenwriter and story writer for Indian Film Cinema. Due to the lack of the references, the article was rejected and I was redirected to this link to seek any assistance. I have cleaned the article by rephrasing the wording to avoid the conflict of interest and also added a couple of references. Hope this is good to go. Please advise or make any changes as necessary. If you find it fit to be published, please do so. Thank you in advance!

Aminuddinshroff (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A conflict of interest is more about you, the editor, and less what you write. (2) We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need to have a strong secondary source (newspaper, news magazine, industry journal) for every claim the article makes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:28, 25 October 2020 review of draft by Caerulescens


Hi, I just submitted an article for review yesterday, and it was declined today. The reason was that my article didn't show significant coverage of the subject in "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm asking for help identifying which of the four sources are acceptable and which are not.

I cited four sources in my draft article. The first is an interview with the subject published on an online arts media website. The second is a profile of the subject in The New York Times. The third is a press release for the subject's first solo exhibition, published by the gallery where the exhibition was held. The fourth is an interview with the subject's husband, published in GQ magazine.

Could you help me by identifying which of the four sources do not meet Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage of the article's subject?

Edit after reviewing Wikipedia:Notability - I see that press releases are not considered "independent of the subject." This is the only published source for the paragraph about the subject's first solo exhibition. I could remove that paragraph from the article draft, thus removing the need for citing the press release. Would the removal of that source then make the article acceptable for submission?

Thanks! Caerulescens (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caerulescens (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not considered independent either. I cant realy determine how independent is the third one, but probbably also at least weak, since the most of the text is written by the subject. I havent checked the last one yet. The removal of the problematic sources would not help your cause, as there would still be no evidence of WP:NPERSON anywhere in the draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

October 26

01:11:39, 26 October 2020 review of draft by Naijabroads


I want to know what other content is needed for the page to be approved. Thanks

Naijabroads (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naijabroads, It is currently pending review. Please be patient. Snowycats (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:02:22, 26 October 2020 review of submission by Thelmaandlouiseltd

Is the page Garfield Doakes being submitted for publication? I can only see it if I say Draft:Garfield Doakes but if I search for submissions on October 25, I don't see it. Please advise.

Thelmaandlouiseltd (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thelmaandlouiseltd, Yes, it has been submitted for review. Snowycats (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:33:10, 26 October 2020 review of submission by President-Wiki-Man


President-Wiki-Man (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President-Wiki-Man, Can we help you? No question was asked. Best, Snowycats (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite anything the subject has created when it comes to determining notability, and YouTube is practically never useful as a source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:51, 26 October 2020 review of submission by 2604:2000:E010:1100:A445:719D:15E7:F493

For the reasons stated on the talk page. The other examples of similar articles are not the lone reason - I think there is sufficient coverage for a national sports federation that sends teams to the Olympics. But it does in addition support my view. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A445:719D:15E7:F493 (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC) 2604:2000:E010:1100:A445:719D:15E7:F493 (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:51, 26 October 2020 review of submission by CSTeller

This is my first Wikipedia article and I hope you can assist me in resolving the comments I received from Robert so my article can be published. On the first comment about the picture of Rebecca Hawkins. It Is actually in the public domain as confirmed by the Jackson County Historical Society which sent me scan of this portrait. It is more than 160 years old from a family collection of portraits that a descendent donated to the society who confirmed that there are no restrictions on its use. I did read the lengthy rules and talked to the society to make sure this was acceptable. However, I think I mistakenly uploaded the wrong one from my files. Instead of the one I received from the society, this may be the copy I had sent to the society so they could identify Rebecca Hawkins in their collections. I cannot see much difference in them but it was a copy I found in a publication that used the photo with the society identified as the owner. So I think I selected the wrong one as I was uploading it. It may take me a little because I’m still figuring out how to navigate my way around, but I will figure out how to get the original scan from the society loaded instead as quickly as I can.

On the comment about the work being copied from another source. Please let me clarify that the writing is all my own. I have cited my sources but none of it is copied or even paraphrased from the sources. I wrote it all in my own words (It took weeks of consulting multiple sources). This is a project for a history course I am taking toward a master’s in History). I think it appears copied because I did copy it from what I thought was a sandbox where I could submit the draft from. I wrote it all in word and copied into this sandbox and tried to submit it for review from there. I could not get it to work so I created a separate draft and copied all of my work into the new draft and submittted it from there. I believe this may be why it looks like it is not my original work. I was crushed when I originally thought I was going to have to re-type all of my work again and happy when I figured out how to copy it over with all the references and links I had created in the sandbox. I will do it if that is required, but I hope not. Any tips you can give me on how to get my work into a draft page for submission that reflects that it truly is my own work, which it definitely is, more easily I would be extremely grateful. I will figure out to delete the redirect. It’s good to know what was causing this. I was wondering why that was happening and how to fix it! Again thank you for your comments and any advice you can offer that will help me get them resolved. CSTeller (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CSTeller Your assignment is to successfully write a Wikipedia article? That would be extremely unfair to you as a student as you have limited control over the process. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to submit the article, I am not required to succeed. So, the Professor is not being unfair. I will turn it in as is, but I would like to see it through as this is a subect I have had an interest in for a couple of years and have invested a considerable amount of time in it even before I took the History class. So timing is not critical, I would just like to learn how to do this properly. I am just looking for some guidance so I can satisfy the comments and hopefully get it published. The commentator seems to think it is as noteworthy as I thought it was. There have been many articles and a scholarly work published on her life. I have taken great pains to write it from an objective perspective and cite as many sources as are relevant and where needed. I am struggling with the process though. I think the fact that I have copied some things improperly, I may be giving the impression I have not done my due diligence. This is why I included all the explanation about what I have done to show that I have done my due diligence, I just need help reflecting that through the mechanics of editing properly in Wikipedia.
I am struggling right now trying to figure out how to get the updated version of Rebecca's picture from the Jackson County History Society (in the public domain) loaded into creative commons and back into my new draft page.
Next I will tackle getting the redirect line deleted.
I don't know what to do about the fact that it appears my narrative and references appear copied, because I did copy all of it from what I thought was my sandbox intended for the purpose of creating a draft.
I hope you can follow this. You can probably tell I'm hung up on the mechanics. If any sherpa out there can give me some guidance, I'd be so grateful. CSTeller (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CSTeller: The comments on the draft say it was copied from multiple books, not a sandbox -- I myself have copied content from my Sandbox with no issues. I recommend pulling up the books and comparing them to your own work, to make sure you haven't accidentally plagiarized anything (I myself have done this while having the article and the work/essay I am trying to write side by side -- makes it very easy). sam1370 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:CSTeller - I have also replied to you on the talk page of the draft, Draft talk:Rebecca Hawkins. I am inferring that the draft consists of work that you have copied from papers or books that you wrote. That takes care of the matter of copyright, but there are still major matters of style. It is not written in the style of a Wikipedia article, and has far too much background material. An article on Rebecca Hawkins should be a brief biography (stressing brief) describing her life, without providing lengthy background material about the Western United States in the nineteenth century, and your draft is more background than biography. The first style issue that a reviewer notes is that the draft lacks a proper lede sentence of the form "Rebecca Hawkins was a ..." (Western pioneer woman who was tried for murdering her husband?). That is easy to add. But the draft needs to be trimmed and put into the form of a short Wikipedia biography without a lot of background.
Do not worry about details such as the status of the photograph, or the redirect. You appear to think that the details are what are preventing acceptance of the draft. Rewriting and shortening the draft is what prevents acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:CSTeller - I put a hatnote at the top of your draft to deal with the existing redirect for the manga character. Did it ever occur to you that maybe I put the hatnote there because I knew what I was doing, or at least a little bit about the oddities of Wikipedia? Did it ever occur to you that maybe deleting the hatnote was not the way to deal with the existing redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:07, 26 October 2020 review of submission by BenNeumann23


The information regarding the coach has been sourced from the official Thai League website, which also has the managerial statistics.

BenNeumann23 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You were repeatedly told by the reviewers on the draft itself that the draft doesn't satisfy our notability criteria for football players and coaches. There is no presumption of notability for coaches/players not in a top-level league (in this case, T1). Even then, statlines can't be used for notability (too sparse). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:58, 26 October 2020 review of submission by CSTeller


CSTeller (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CSTeller: The comments on the draft say it was copied from multiple books, not a sandbox -- I myself have copied content from my Sandbox with no issues. I recommend pulling up the books and comparing them to your own work, to make sure you haven't accidentally plagiarized anything (I myself have done this while having the article and the work/essay I am trying to write side by side -- makes it very easy). sam1370 (talk · contribs) 16:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response above. It is not my practice to copy and paste from an original source and I am very careful about this as a rule. But I know that it is possible to rephrase in such a way as to copy another author's work as you describe without intending to. So, I doublehecked the sources thoroughly once more as you suggested before I submitted my response. I did not see any of my narrative that comes directly from either of these sources or any of the other sources that I used either. I know the reviewers must be extrememly busy, but I would greatly appreciate it if the specific narrative in question could be shown to me so that I can make any necessary corrections. CSTellerCSTeller (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:13, 26 October 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:811C:6901:5422:A30E:7F6:4AD0

I believe this flag deserves a review as a special representation for federal capital territories. Thanks! 2A00:23C7:811C:6901:5422:A30E:7F6:4AD0 (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:12:39, 26 October 2020 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:811C:6901:5422:A30E:7F6:4AD0

This was the Richest and Largest State with its own Army and was supported by Mountbatten and Churchill. 2A00:23C7:811C:6901:5422:A30E:7F6:4AD0 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 27

02:22:48, 27 October 2020 review of draft by Blackkittycat71


I cannot figure out if this article is still under review? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arthur_Langer?action=edit

Blackkittycat71 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackkittycat71 As noted at the top, the draft was declined. Please review the comments left by the reviewer, and you are welcome to address them and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:29, 27 October 2020 review of submission by Makmurguy

I am new to be an editor (or creation for submission). But the person that I set up Wikipedia's site for him is one of the important guys in Malaysia who had contributed important achievement in Civil Society's arena in Malaysia. I hope you can really guide me, how to make sure that this site (Mohd Nizam Mahshar) can get approval to be published at Wikipedia.

Thank you. Makmurguy (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makmurguy You are attempting to create a Wikipedia article, not an entire website. You were given some advice by the reviewers at the top of your draft, do you have any questions about that? 331dot (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:51, 27 October 2020 review of submission by Penofdestiny

I have never done this before ever and I just wanted to make sure this new young pop/rock singer has her first Wikipedia page. It was recently rejected and I wanted to get help so that she will have her first page as her career gets going.Penofdestiny (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC) Penofdestiny (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penofdestiny Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. Your draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this musician does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:23:02, 27 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Serv181920


Hi, I had created a draft for Farzam Kamalabadi which was rejected giving the reason that it looks like an advertisement. I realised that the wordings used were not in line with Wikipedia policies. I have updated the article, made it neutral but still not sure if this meets wikipedia guidelines. This is my first independent submission. After editing the article, I have not re-submitted for review. Help from experts would be appreciated. Thank you. Serv181920 (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:27, 27 October 2020 review of submission by ITO SHINOBU


This Glyceryl octyl ascorbic acid (GO-VC) column is about 2-glyceryl-3-octyl ascorbic acid. However, the IUPAC Name, Other name, CAS Number, 3D model, PubChem CID are for 2-octyl-3-glyceryl ascorbic acid and should be changed to those for 2-glyceryl-3-octyl ascorbic acid.

ITO SHINOBU (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:12:09, 27 October 2020 review of submission by LeenaEvilin


Hello, I'm a little bit confused about the fact that the article seemed to be not written from a 'neutral point of view'. I did research here on the English wikipedia how other Japanese actors (ex:Hiroki Suzuki (actor, born 1983)) are introduced before creating the article. So it would be really helpful to know what exactly the problem is in order to fix it. And the citations problem is confusing me as well. Does it mean that I need to put a footnotes after every bulletpoint ('performance') to get the article approved? I created this article as a mirror-page to the Japanese article (edited by me as well), but unlike here I never encountered any problems, which really adds to all my confusion.LeenaEvilin (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:01, 27 October 2020 review of submission by ACSP01


ACSP01 (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ACSP01 You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody review this page and approve it ACSP01 (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ACSP01: I have reviewed it. still no evidence of WP:NCORP whatsoever. In the current state this draft isn't going to be approved. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:28:58, 27 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Khadar shah



Khadar shah (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khadar shah You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:29, 27 October 2020 review of draft by Ervikasbhargava


I need help with my references and citations. I have added a lot of references to this article. I want to know if this is correct and can i submit it for review?

Ervikasbhargava (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:49:39, 27 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by PA Packard


Hi,

I submitted an article for the website humanjourney.us and got the reply: Please provide independent reliable sources that discusses the web site

I looked up the backlinks to the website, to see if I could find another website that might review it. I found many mentions, including specialized forums and educational resources, including wikipedia articles, linking to the the humanjourney.us or using it as a reference. But I didn't find a website that did an extensive review of it. I might be mistaken but it seems to me that formal independent reviews of websites of this kind are not the norm.

I'm not sure what to do at this point really. Is there any solution to this? Should I add what I wrote as a subsection of the wikipedia page about the charity that is behind the website? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_Human_Knowledge

cheers,

P

PA Packard (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=985708227"