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 1.136.107.137 (talk) at 01:37, 3 March 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


February 25

Request on 09:20:20, 25 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SriAmaraneni


I need help to edit my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SreedharRaoChennamaneni

Thank You!

Sreedhar Rao (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SriAmaraneni, your article has been rejected, it cannot be resubmitted. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Reply. Please Remove my article from draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriAmaraneni (talk • contribs) 11:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SriAmaraneni Are you requesting it be deleted? 331dot (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, thank you for your response! Please Edit my article, if it is not possible then delete it.

Thank you.

10:19:39, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Stefan Gigliotti

Could anyone please give me a feedback on this either let me know what to do next? That would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot in advance Stefan Gigliotti (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Gigliotti, there is nothing to do next, please be patient, there are more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review, it can take months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stefan Gigliotti, no Declined as an advert. There is a full rationale on the declined draft and a note of the work required to see if he qualifies for an article here Fiddle Faddle 12:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:12:07, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Theman465

The subject has become very notable over the past months gaining many articles and references of him. He also has gained 30 Thousand social media followers. He is very notable now and definitely qualifies for the article on Wikipedia. Theman465 (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number of social media followers has no bearing whatsoever on notability. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:11, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Rajeev Kumar Pillai


It is said that its about myself.. my submission is its not about me and its about a different person

Rajeev Kumar Pillai (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also has zero reliable sources so cannot be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:35, 25 February 2021 review of draft by KempeIAGeng


Guess, we need help with the entry on Pyroducts. Please explain why the entry has been rejected and what could be made better. If you need more publications cited, that can be mended. Please mark the paragraphs that are found to be faulty and explain why. Before submitting the current text has been reviewed by US volcanologists Dr. J. Lookwood and Dr. R. Hazlett, the authors of the most recent and encompassing textbook on volcanology (Wiley, 2010, 2nd ed. in review). Therefore there should not be any scientific faults. Thank you, S. Kempe

KempeIAGeng (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KempeIAGeng, the problem with your draft is that you will need to give citations for the statements you made. Please read the Reviewers Comments and especially follow the links given by them, of help might also Help:Referencing for beginners . CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:17:54, 25 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SecretName1234


Robert McClenon sited two 6-year-old "Articles for Deletion" pages for rejecting a recently submitted article about Black Gryph0n (Gabriel Christian Brown; Gabriel Brown (actor)). Black Gryph0n is much more noteworthy than he was 6 years ago. He is mentioned on many current wiki pages,[note 1] and there are hundreds of hits on that name on the internet in general. 

 As I mentioned in the article, Black Gryph0n has over 4 million subscribers on Youtube,[1] has 11 Filmography credits on IMDb, [2] and many albums and singles on Amazon, and is a verified artist on Spotify,[3] with 137k monthly listeners.

[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvzWGXYFDiiJ338KIJPhbhQ
  2. ^ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6437354/
  3. ^ https://open.spotify.com/artist/4ET82ZtSfAK4utfjDauImD
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beep_Beep_I%27m_a_Sheep
  5. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Creber
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Rewind_2019:_For_the_Record
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Stars
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_a_Coin_to_Your_Witcher
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabitha_St._Germain
  10. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joakim_Lundell
  11. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Dance_2018
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_in_Equestria_Girls
  13. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_Shorty_Awards
  14. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Dance_Now

SecretName1234 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234, Spotify, Imdb and even Wikipedia are not reliable Sources, you will need to provide others like AviationFreak already said. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ see references below
@SecretName1234: The draft you submitted does not provide any secondary reliable sources. See WP:PSTS and WP:RS for more information. AviationFreak💬 20:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:53, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Help in getting my article published.

Fitwrite (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:56:51, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Help in getting my article published, sorry did not fill our full question a few mins ago:

Hi, I just read the decline to my draft being published, by a reviewer, and I am mystified at why. The reviewer says I have not made significant documentation of secondary sources; my article Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging (at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anonymous_Personal_Sex_Blogging , username: fitwrite) has 70 references, cited over 100 times in APA style citations. They say it reads more like an essay; well I simply documented all the research. I have a few statements about global anthropological universalities that are my own, and more just natural comments on classifying and paraphrasing the research, but apart from that just about every sentence is a non-plagurized paraphrasing from secondary sources. I noticed the reviewer declined my submission in one day, I submitted it on Sunday and it was declined that same day; that is fast, and I thank the reviewer for the fast work, they must have university professor level skills to assess my complex article in such a short time. I am not trying to question the reviewers the decision, I am just trying to understand it and understand how I can get the article published on wiki. I see many other articles on wiki that have few citations and are even poorly written, looking like they are machine translated from another language, but these articles are allowed on wiki; my article with over 100 citations and written in well structure sentences by me, (a university educated person, whose first language is English), and fully proofread down to most, if not all, commas being used correctly; my article is not allowed on wiki. This makes little sense to me. I can not even see how I would re-write it to make it more "encyclopedic" rather than “essay like"; I read entries in Encyclopedia Britannica that are written in a similar format to my article, for example, Douglas, K. M. (2019, January 4). Deindividuation. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/deindividuation ; this article writes about the psychological research about deindividualisation theory reporting on academic research studies in a similar way to my style of article writing. Can you please help me to try and get this article that I have laboured over for over a month, on to wiki? Maybe if you need to send this long question to help wiki help desk, please do so. Thank you, fitwrite. Fitwrite (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwrite, too see that your draft is written almost like an Essay a Reviewer does not need more than a couple of minutes. Why the (experienced) Reviewer was thinking that it needs more secondary sources would be best to ask himself so I allow myself to ping him here @Bkissin:. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I will let you all sort things out, please also see my third question here about my suggestion to just let wiki users edit it further, thanks f.w. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford, I declined this for the Essay issues and for notability. Perhaps it should have been a decline for WP:NOT or WP:OR. I'm currently on a break/hiatus from AfC for precisely these kinds of issues. If another editor believes the article is ready for mainspace, then by all means accept it. Bkissin (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well thanks, and sorry if I have a critical tone in my questions here. I am just a bit upset and wanting article published. Ignore my possibly over critical tone in my longer question posted ahead, before I read your reply. Well sorry it has just been about three weeks since I first submitted article and I am anxious to get things moving. Please if another editor can publish it to main space I would be very thankfull. Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fitwrite, we have editors here waiting for months to get their draft reviewed since we have over 4,000 articles waiting for review so please be patient. But in general please take a moment and review your draft regarding the comments which were made, especially the WP:OR Part seems significant. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:50, 25 February 2021 review of submission by SecretName1234


Theroadislong commented that there are zero independent, reliable sources for Black Gryph0n, so I followed the Wiki advice and looked for internet news sources. There are many [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 

  I don't know if these are reliable sources, if they aren't, please tell me how to find reliable sources.  The  Wiki help pages say to search "news" sources on the internet, which I did.

  I look at Black Gryph0n's contemporaries, and they don't have as big a presence as Black Gryph0n (for example, Michelle Creber), yet they have Wiki pages.

  Is over 4-million Youtube subscribers noteworthy?  Eleven Filmography references on IMDb?  Large Spotify following?  Please tell me why these are not noteworthy reliable sources.

  Thanks!


SecretName1234 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName1234, as far as I see your draft had indeed only primary sources like YouTube and Spotify so of course it was declined by @Theroadislong:. And it was rejected just because this article has been deleted several times before as far as I see. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hypable.com/10-toss-a-coin-to-your-witcher-remixes-the-witcher/
  2. ^ https://primaryignition.com/2020/06/10/youtube-spotlight-ill-make-a-jedi-out-of-you-by-the-clarkson-twins/
  3. ^ https://azednews.com/santa-cruz-valley-unified-hosts-steam-and-wellness-night/
  4. ^ https://www.simplemost.com/this-guys-harry-potter-impressions-are-amazing/
  5. ^ https://www.slashgear.com/youtube-rewind-2019-tries-to-be-fair-but-is-it-05602412/
  6. ^ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/lil-deuce-deuce-beep-beep-sheep-1.4063071
  7. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/finalists-for-2020-shorty-awards-which-wont-have-physical-event-2020-3#youtube-musician-team-internet-30
  8. ^ https://www.altpress.com/news/man_vocal_impersonation_brendon_urie_billie_joe_armstrong_oli_sykes/
  9. ^ https://insidethemagic.net/2020/06/disney-musical-crossovers-mg1/
  10. ^ https://www.distractify.com/p/shorty-awards-nominees-youtube
  11. ^ https://www.dualshockers.com/just-dance-2018-tracklist-ubisoft-ps4-switch-xbox/

22:21:08, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Another question about completing my article: My second question is much simplier: how do I get the table at the top of my article into a nice table form with cell lines and a grey or light blue background. I followed wiki-markup guides to try to do this but it would not take the code and only allowed the table in the current less attractive format.

Fitwrite (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:01, 25 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


The page cut off before I could finish question so I will ask again: I spent over a month labouring away to write not only an acceptable article for wiki but even a good or featured one. I tried to emulate Theory of Literature ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Literature ) as an example. Is the reason my article is not on wiki more just an academic ego struggle where people are saying my article is not a great one etc.? If the debate is over greatness and not simple acceptability then may I suggest my article, which seemed to be, being legible and referencing sources, may I then suggest to deem my article acceptable, publish it and allow wiki users to edit and improve it, to make it more "encyclopedic". This would seem more like what I understood wiki to be about; my understanding of wiki was that it was a place where users were free to add their own edits and articles, the writing would appear published instantly and then other users would be able to improve upon the articles. The need to get an article perfect before publishing is new to me and makes wiki more like a book such as Encyclopedia Britannica, where publishers have to accept a manuscript and it is edited to perfection before going to print, which is not, I thought the original manifesto of wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration, Fitwrite

Fitwrite (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:09, 25 February 2021 review of submission by Johnadams11

Hello: my draft article on Richard "Bigo" Barnett was rejected by CommanderWaterford with the comment that I consult Wikipedia:Notability (people) One Event.

I've been thinking about this for most of a week, and would request some guidance based on the logic I've layed out below:

The linked WP article states:

"In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."


So far, so good.

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. "




Clear that the Capitol Riot was highly significant. Plain that Barnett's role was not large. Clear that he fails under this concept. We move on:

"When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example, Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination."



Clear that this is the standard which must be used. What was the magnitude of Barnett's involvement in this major event? Let's start with an easy measurement using the example given. A Google search of Howard Leslie Brennan yields 7.4M organic search results. A search of Richard Barnett Yields 31.6M. This may not in itself be dispositive, but it does signal that an immediate finding of non-notability appears at odds with a very obvious and objective point of measurement.

Now let's go a bit deeper. The single most notable person in the January 6th attack was one Jake Angeli, for whom there is now a Wikipedia page. A Google search of Jake Angeli yields 3.8M results.

It seems to me that in order to assess that Barnett "is not sufficiently notable for inclusion" one has to be applying some metric of notability that I do not yet understand. It is here, that I'm seeking input.

Many thanks. Johnadams11 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnadams11 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnadams11. Good job working through Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event.
Things go wrong where you try to assess the magnitude of Barnett's involvement. Google searches are a bad way to evaluate or compare notability, for numerous reasons. For one thing, there aren't really millions of Google hits for those three names. If you go to the last result, you'll find there are only 162, 168, and 173 (although results can be different for every searcher, another problem). If Ghits were an acceptable measure, they would suggest that none of these three people is notable. But Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria specifically excludes using search engine statistics to evaluate notability. The "Google test" is also one of the notability fallacies to avoid in deletion discussions.
A reviewer's job is to turn away drafts that more likely than not would be deleted. Comparing drafts to other pages (instead of to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) is fraught with problems, but let's study the example you put forward. Jake Angeli was nominated for deletion. The main argument for deletion was the one given by the reviewer of your draft. The most persuasive counter argument was that Angeli had media coverage before the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. In the end the article was narrowly kept. The draft doesn't show significant coverage of Barnett before the event, so you shouldn't expect that it would be kept if it were moved to article space. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the input. I would make several notes to the points you made. First, the Google Limits as well as the arguments to avoid in deletion are arguments almost exclusively on the limitations of search, and the fact that many sources may not be indexed. The point I was making relied on the presence of results, not their absence. I think Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria is more on point to my question. The reason I thought Google results would be of interest is that I didn't really think it was debatable that Barnett had received significant global coverage from reliable sources. For example: NBC News, ABC News, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Associated Press, Fox News, Reuters, Australia, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Taiwan, Canada, England.
So, my point of course didn't depend on Google. I was merely seeking a common vocabulary for discussion of the RS stories in general. That said, your points on Angeli are well taken. The bit of history he has prior to 1/6 nudges the debate outside of 1E and makes the decision far simpler. For Barnett, I try to have heart for the idea that he was a minor player in a major event, and otherwise a person of no unique interest. However, and this argues in favor of waiting -- I think there's an excellent chance that future histories of 1/6, will often include that iconic photo of Barnett, driving future researchers to ask: "who was that guy?" Thanks again.

Johnadams11 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

02:37:27, 26 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


In thinking about how I could improve the article more. I think, drastically, to make it more “encyclopedic “ should I make it extremely simple and just chop off the entire article before the heading Psychological Considerations, loosing about 75% of the content. The sections then would be basic outlining of facts, definitions, history and blog content, which is more encyclopedic. But then why do this, as I said in other encyclopedia articles the discussion of academic theory is welcome. Encyclopedia Britannica as I already quoted does this and further in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry entitled “Blogs", hence a similar entry to mine, it treats the subject in a similar way to how I treat it, first outlining definition, then history, then content, then sociological and cultural considerations and it even mentions Pohl as I do. Again Theory of Literature which I emulated my article on, although it is a book review and so a different subject, dives into the article with similar depth and similar academic tone and writing. This article which is listed in your “how to write a good article section” could be argued also to not be in an “encyclopedic tone", it is academic in tone, deals in the language of academic theories and is far more than a simple encyclopedic entry outlining basic facts.

Again, as I keep saying my article is backed up by many references. I know that when I originally submitted the article I had not learned how do wiki mark-up in my references and so my 70 references and over 100 citations were there but they were not coded in; I have now coded them in, in a sophisticated way, using notes that refer to anchors in the reference list. But this is very disturbing when one reads all your signs about ones article such as “has no references” when this is not true. I know the signs on wiki are often computer generated but still they are off-putting. The fact is my article had always had about 70 references from “independent, published secondary sources", which are more than “passingly mentioned". The whole point is that I have mentioned each reference “in significant detail", contrary to the reviewer arguing I have not; which is why the article reads “like an essay", as much as “like an encyclopedic entry". If I “summarized” everything to make it more "encyclopedic" then would I not be in danger of making the article mention each reference only as “a passing entry", as a summary, by definition does. Then the two criticisms by the reviewer walk the same line of being in danger of over-balancing, so to speak.

The reviewer also adds in my review all the standard tags about reading up on how to write good wiki articles and how to research them. I have already followed all these links, before I wrote the article. I read carefully through all those links, thus is why I came to “ Theory of Literature” article as an example of a good wiki article. Incidentally it was only by finally studying the wiki mark-up in this Theory of Literature article that I was able to see how to do sophisticated notes and references (where the references are linked to the notes as anchors and the notes in turn link back to the in-text superscripted reference labels). I researched my article in google, Google scholar , CORE, BASE, newspapers online many listed in the wiki research sections, Google books, and cross-references of theories and sources with-in the academic journals (i.e. “published independent secondary sources", that are further the key of all written research material, e.g. Attwood, F. (2009). Intimate adventures: Sex blogs, sexblooks' and women's sexual narration. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 5-20, 1 of my 70 references .) It should be noted that wiki did not allow me entry to other paywalled research databases because at the time I had been a member for less than a month (why is this? it should). However when researching in the depth I researched, you tend to get in to a lot of the same research publically that is similar, if not the same as, in the closed paywalls databases. Again not looking for book publisher perfection, I would have thought that is something another user can go in and do, once my article is published, adding in a few research items from paywalled databases like Cambridge and Oxford. Maybe a university professor specialising in computer studies who likes to edit wiki in their spare time could edit my article in this way, easily and in a couple hours 


  I noticed in the references that I had all done with precision, carefully in APA style, when I coded them in using wiki-mark-up, some came up as needing more fields, but it at least shows them all there, something which again, future wiki users could improve when my article is published . Then all those signs that show in the information about my review are useless to me, as I had already followed all those links in teaching myself how to  write a good article. I noticed @commanderwaterford had suggested that the reviewer had come to a decision about the essay quality  of my article in a few minutes. It occurred to me that if one just looked at the first few paragraphs of the article and did not fully  examine and read thoroughly  the full article, then they may only read the lead, where in the first few paragraphs I summarise the entire article and so I do not include many citations. The lead then is based on all 70 of the references and it would be redundant to tag the lead with numbers 1 to 70 superscript reference labels. However if you just did a fast review, only reading the first few paragraphs you may think that there are not references.  However most other articles on wiki have a lead, to  start, which is a summary introduction and is not labelled with all the references . Also note that in the signs that are shown with the reviewer comments, one of the links goes to suggestions about starting research for writing wiki articles, and one of those suggestions is to see how the subject is treated in other encyclopedias, which I did, as I illustrated in my discussion about the entry "blogs", in Encyclopedia Britannica. One would have thought the Encyclopedia Britannica is a “published independent" source and further a well-respected and accepted model for encyclopedia writing, being from the same academic circles as Oxford University. Incidentally I do not use the Encyclopedia Britannica much as a reference source and most of my sources are “secondary", e.g. academic journals and newspapers.

Again I am always mystified by the circularity in logic and lack of clarity I come up against when trying to enter my article on to wiki. This is more similar to what one would expect from a privately owned corporation with it’s own agenda than the non-profit, user defined free use system that wikipedia is; it is this very free user-defined model of the original wikipedia that upholds a democratic use of the internet. The minute you start adding in monarchic or oligarchic controls over wiki is the minute it turns into a not free publishing empire. I am “just saying" and not trying to criticize individuals. Incidentally in my article I do cover this very topic of how the internet is actually a highly controlled place, less free than real space as outlined in, another “independent published secondary source" that I use, Lessig, L. (2009) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. (large print). ReadHowYouWant.com, you can also refer to [Lessig] on wikipedia. There is a further significance here in that Internet legislation should encourage more freedom, and thus could I would think be extended to wiki. I do not want to “rock the boat" of wikipedia, I just want my article published. As I say it is legible, has references so what is the problem! Why should not I be able to publish it as an autoconfirmed user? Then once it is published any one of the 10s of thousands of professors out there with a specialization overlapping the article or anyone one else with reasonable intelligence can, in a couple hours make a few good quick edits to make the article a shining picture of masterpiece perfection. This user defined way of publishing articles is supposed to be what wikipedia is about, it is not supposed to be a book publisher with a need to produce perfect product before publishing.




Fitwrite (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Non-reviewer comment) - I think you might be approaching this in the wrong manner, and won't get anywhere by grandstanding about the nature of wikipedia. I don't think the problem here is Wiki bureaucracy; the article is simply not in a good place for admission to mainspace. The article reads more as its own contained treatise on the subject, rather than an entry about a specific topic in the wider encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for one's "own articles" to be "published" as if this were an academic journal; wikipedia is a place for one to contribute to the overall project, which means writing for the application of a page being a wikipedia article, rather than using wikipedia as a venue for posting standalone written work that was not written with the encyclopedia fully in mind. The Encyclopaedia Britannica is also irrelevant to Wikipedia style, as a curated physical encyclopaedia has very different concerns to a project like Wikipedia, which is not bound by a text medium lacking hyperlinks/interlinking/community participation. Presently, the article eschews wiki style in several ways; it is overly verbose employing contextless jargon, includes an excessive amount of subject background that would properly be omitted as it is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (for instance, a comprehensive summary of the history of blogging is not needed, because we already have an article at Blog!), and the writing style is essay-like in that it seems to seek to persuade the reader, with quoted examples and self-referential flow, of the synthesized research outcomes of the author, rather than to simply restate what is noted in the relevant cited secondary sources. The detailed description of individual studies, where the studies in themselves have not achieved notability beyond their outcome being relevant to the subject, is also highly unusual for a wikipedia article. The matter of avoiding "passing mentions" refers to coverage of the topic within the sources themselves, not in terms of how the sources are mentioned in the wikipedia article (often, they specifically should not be!).
The best way to proceed, in my opinion, would be to avoid writing about this topic in the way one might for an academic paper (with excessive background, synthesis of points rather than description of sourced information (see WP:SYNTH, and an aim to persuade rather than summarize). Rather, the article should directly summarize conclusions and information already reached/explained in secondary sources, with minimal asides, non-directly-relevant examples, or background research, other than what is absolutely essential in the text in order for it to be understood. Background topics can be reached by the viewer through application of interwiki links, and if the reader wishes to explore the methodology of studies rather than their outcomes (excluding where the undertaking of the study is itself a notable part of the topic), they can navigate directly to the cited source. Sections should also be broken up with subheadings, to avoid long walls of text. In terms of formatting, it is probably best to forgo academic inline citations and instead use wiki citations only - also, as it stands the article images are far too large, and should be included as thumbs with scaled graphical height to avoid the image being unnecessarily displayed at full size.
(I apologize for my intrusion as I am not an AfC reviewer, but I wanted to comment somewhere as I see you have been making multiple requests). BlackholeWA (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fitwrite, You have put a great deal of time and effort into this piece of historical research. It will have a place as a great blog piece, but Wikipedia cannot accept original research. I know this will be very disappointing to hear.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
As it stands this piece cannot be accepted. With a generous rewrite I think it could be. However, that generous rewrite also involves a significant précis in order to remove the "essay like quality" that always comes with research.
If you can distill from the piece the bare bones of it then it stands a chance. Be aware, though, that the brining together of multiple sources to create a conclusion is alwasy original research here. We only report other people's research. This can feel maddening when you say "But I am doing this!", but it is the manner of the presentation of what others say that matters.
You've chosen a large and interesting topic. Good. Can you make it encyclopaedic rather than thesis material? I hope so Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:58:48, 26 February 2021 review of submission by Jdimiango


Jdimiango (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:46, 26 February 2021 review of submission by HeyRui

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm asking for create the page "Flyingvoice", but my submission had been rejected. Would you please give me more specific suggestions about what can I do to fix it? I'd like to know what information should I delete or modify to meet the purpose of Wikipedia. HeyRui (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HeyRui The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further and no amount of editing can change that. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to comply with the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:39, 26 February 2021 review of submission by Khan khoja


Khan khoja (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khan khoja, what is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:28, 26 February 2021 review of submission by Sonic Punch Revival

Hey can you give good sources to cite the Undertale Story

Sonic Punch Revival (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Punch Revival, a look at WP:FIND might help you to find sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:49:01, 26 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Volunteer 0


I have some issues regarding copyrights.. I'm the owner of a copyrighted article and I want to publish it on Wikipedia I understand that the article I intend to publish here should vary structurally And linguistically from what I have on my website .. So can you tell me more about the copyrighted articles? Volunteer 0 (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer 0: You can review WP:DCM about copyrights, however, I have a slight feeling you are wasting your time there, because of Wikipedia's verifyability and neutral point of view requirements. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:16:38, 26 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Antonio Balsaq


I am 88 years of age and not very tech savvy. Can someone help re-write bio of Bhupinder Singh Mahal in compliance with Wikipedia.


Antonio Balsaq (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:09, 26 February 2021 review of draft by Redbettie7


I need help with next steps in editing my article. It recently got declined due to the references used and I am wondering what type of reference articles it needs to get approved. Would one article be enough for approval? Is there anything else other than references in order for me to move forward with this article.

Redbettie7 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are all volunteers here, you however are being paid, perhaps you should do your client the courtesy of learning the basics of editing here before accepting any payment and maybe spend a few weeks/months editing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:00:29, 26 February 2021 review of draft by Naufalle Al Wahab


Hello when will my article be reviewed again?

Naufalle Al Wahab (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naufalle Al Wahab, There are more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review and it can take up to several months so please be patient. CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

00:21:14, 27 February 2021 review of draft by Fitwrite


Hi, This is a summary to address all the comments about requirements needed to get my article Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging published, including the important General Notability Guidelines criteria to meet notability, as discussed by @NovemLinguae. I will work to vastly re-write the article to make it acceptable in the ways outlined below. Please let me know, have I have missed any important re-write guidelines so I can do a good job and the next submission for review will end in publishing?!

The reviewer Bkissin had originally said that in the draft submission “references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article that is, they do not show significant coverage…about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent.” However this reviewer on the help desk page later conceded that the issues with the article were more to do with it being original research.

In dealing with this issue I will refer to the article meeting General Notability Guidelines criteria to meet notability, as later discussed by @NovemLinguae . Novem Linguae said for General Notability Guidelines it would help if I could provide 3 reference sources from the article that use the exact term Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and have a few paragraphs of content about this subject. Now the concept of the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog is used in the sources but it is hard to find a source that coins the exact term “Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. " For example, the sources may discuss the concept or the actual manifestation of an anonymous blog with personal writing including about sex. I have listed below 7 sources used in my article that do provide a meeting of notability guidelines. It becomes plainly evident in reading these 7 listed secondary sources, four academic journals and three published books, that they are studying, as part or all of their study focus, blogs that are either all anonymous or some are anonymous and are personal, including ones all about sex or about sex and other subjects. Formality of this ruling could be furthered by considering under Subject-Specific Notability Guidelines because the subject is in the field of computer and Internet studies and further specifically anonymous personal sex blogging is a new Internet phenomenon emerging in the 2000s, then there is not 100s of years of notable research; then possibly the subject needs different criteria in considering notability. A further point is, I had submitted the draft to the reviewer with the title “Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging”, i.e. the act of creating blogs. However someone or possibly the “magic of wiki A.I.” had made the decision to revert the draft to one with an earlier title of “Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. " In studying the subject carefully as I did, one will notice that there is far more research about the act of blogging in this specific way than about the actual self-contained Anonymous Personal Sex Blogs. This is because there is much blogging done on social media platforms such as Twitter, and on date sites where the blogging occurs not on a blog but on a platform for blogging or computer communication. I think that using either title, the criteria for notability is met but there are more sources for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging compared to for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. A case in point is: Lloyd, C.E.M., Finn, M.D. (2017). Authenticity, validation and sexualisation on Grindr: An analysis of trans women’s accounts. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1-2), 158-169. doi: 10.1080 / 19419899.2017.1316769, which is a source for Anonymous Personal Sex Blogging rather than for Anonymous Personal Sex Blog. I provide this example because there seemed to be some question about whether there were three notability sources so, every example for the case may help. I have listed 7 further examples of sources for this notability criteria, (for the Anonymous Personal Sex Blog title), as follows, and I can easily provide more, out of the 70 references, if it comes to that, and if there is still a question of the very existence of the article on wiki):

• Attwood, F. (2009). Intimate adventures: Sex blogs, sexblooks' and women's sexual narration. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), 5-20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240691173_Intimate_adventuresSex_blogs_sex_blooks'_and_women's_sexual_narration •* Cardell, K. (2014). Dear World: Contemporary uses of the Diary. University of Wisconsin Press.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=TX7VBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA43&dq=Everyday+Authenticity:+Contemporary+Uses+of+the+Diary+Kylie+Cardell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjV9vainLDuAhWyFzQIHZwDDfkQ6wEwAHoECAEQBA#v=onepage&q=Everyday%20Authenticity%3A%20Contemporary%20Uses%20of%20the%20Diary%20Kylie%20Cardell&f=false


• Farrer, J. (2007). China's Women Sex Bloggers and Dialogic Sexual Politics on the Chinese Internet. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs-China aktuell, 36(4), 10-4

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14455603906827013971&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3Dftjio56S0SsJ

• Ferreday, D. (2010). Writing Sex Work Online: The Case of Belle de Jour. Wagadu: a Journal of Transnational and Women's and Gender Studies, 8, 273-292. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/55280/ and at https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=15456196&AN=59523517&h=3wppKEiprwL%2b8%2ftYx7H82c1XrZufJuqUIoLbv3CPhw5svCZFO4SrbCQG7QSVbyAxVLP5EyCztiXpWK5Lp8D3aQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d15456196%26AN%3d59523517


• Tiidenberg, K., Nagel, E. (2020). Sex and Social Media. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/sex-and-social-media


• Wood, E. (2008). Consciousness-Raising 2.0: Sex blogging and the creation of a feminist sex commons. Feminism & Psychology, 18(4), 480-487. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Wood+2008+sex+commons&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DJGDZllexCWYJ

Note the links are from my research data records and are not often in the article references. I cited everything using APA style before I learnt to wiki mark-up the references in to wiki. Now I realise the wiki system seems to favor providing links for all references. Is this necessary? I could probably find links for most of the 70 references if I had to but it would be a lot of work to code them all in. Also because I did not use paywalled databases a lot of my research involved downloading pdfs of journals which then have no link, and then the link is to the database entry or abstract and not to the journal itself. Then technically wiki readers cannot easily access the research from my references. To change this I would basically have to start the research from scratch again, gain access to paywalled sites and write a different article, making futile my months labour to write this complex highly researched article. I hope this is not required. Of course newspapers often do have links and the books have links to Google Books but it is rare, I would have thought to be able to provide a link to a full book with all pages accessible, so for references to books, wiki users are usually not going to get links to specific pages within a book anyway.

Does this meets the criteria for notability for the subject?

Next the reviewer and another reviewer who made comments had mentioned that I should summarise the topic, create a precis, write about it from a neutral point of view and have no original research, use mostly secondary sources, use primary sources only backed up by secondary and a few tertiary sources (eg. Britannica); and not contain opinions; and not draw my own conclusions in summarizing, just report what the secondary sources say.

In writing this way I should write in an encyclopedic style and consider what wiki is intended to be used for, to make my article integrate into the wikipedia general content. I will vastly re-write the entire article to change it from an essay or thesis to a wikipedia entry.

Does this sound acceptable?

Other points also mentioned by others, but not, I do not think by reviewers, are: try to avoid content that is already in wikipedia and use only thumb size pictures. For the pictures, I have read on wiki that larger pictures are allowed, there is discussion on one wiki page about how to upload panaramic large pixel dimension photographs for a nice effect. My photos are a pleasant visual addition to help break up text and I took a lot of effort to find the 7 pictures and photographs which are encyclopedic in character, historical and so lending provenance (a wiki listed quality to have on a wiki article) to the article. The photographs and pictures are all carefully found in archive museum-like collections (none from social media or other questionable online sources), that definitely state the lack of specific copyright restrictions of either CC-BY or PDM. Further the “plates” are works of art in themselves and look good presented in large detailed form and give the article a more impressive book like quality. Then I do not see why I should have to reduce them to meagre thumbs. The case is not a big one and any reviewer can, in a few minutes add the “thumb" code to the wiki mark-up to change the pictures if this is a rule to get the article on wiki. As to the other point about overlap of content with other wiki articles. Wiki is a vast database and I would need a sophisticated algorithm on a mainframe computer to do a thorough search to ensure that every sentence in my article is not a repeat of ideas from another article. Since I do not have this computer capability I am unable to control for this. Further since wiki is being constantly edited then content overlaps must be being continually created and changed, out of anyone’s control. I think this more could be an “editor myth", that you have to cut out all overlapping content? Intuitively when I think of an encyclopedia I think of something that one never reads from cover to cover. If one looks up something in an encyclopedia is it not better to get a comprehensive coverage of the subject, which entails coverage of the basics that may also be written about elsewhere in the encyclopedia. At this point I will assume this is not an issue and will not try to write out potential guessed overlappping content from my article unless a reviewer tells me otherwise.

Please tell me now anything I have missed to ensure that I do a thoroughly job of re-writing the article so it is published, next.

Thank you, Fitwrite.


Fitwrite (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitwrite: Hi there, did you mean to post this to the public AFC Help Desk? I note that in the reviewer comments, Novem Linguae suggested you address this at Draft talk:Anonymous personal sex blog. Also, the above is a lot for anybody to digest. You might consider paring it down to the most relevant points, but that's just my two cents. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are so many difference places to post questions and comments I am always confused at which to use. As long as people get the message and things are dealt with, it seems to me it does not matter too much where it is posted. I did send this message also to Novem linguae's talk page so I am sure they will address it when time. The message is also a general question to get everything in order and when someone can, I would be thankfull if it is answered as I am now already re-writing. Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 05:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Hi, now you brought up the subject and out of curiosity at how messages work. I just went into draft talk for Anonymous Personal Sex Blog and there are no messages there; there were messages to me there earlier today so they must have been deleted, why is this? Anyway this basically means that if I had tried to address this with Novem Lingue in the draft talk for the article there would have been no message there for me to attach my reply to. Then how long would it take for someone to find it? Thank you, fitwrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 05:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Hi, oh also about the suggestion to shorten my question, well the question is complex as writing a wiki article is complex, by definition. The question is necessary to be of that complexity to get the needed answers so to shorten it would only mean my questions would then not be properly answered. There is no deadline obviously and everything is dependent on much appreciated volunteers, so thank you, whenever someone gets to answering the questions. Fitwrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitwrite (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlackholeWA, just fyi: they are already marked for speedy deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:21:11, 27 February 2021 review of submission by Chris Ash135

I recently created a page to cover my own history, in line with something numerous friends and colleagues appear to have done in the world of elite sport. The article was factual and relatively brief, partly to create some detail to link to another citation in a page about a major international hockey championship where I was awarded a prestigious award. I have since received information saying this article wouldn't be accepted. I am not sure why, and how other almost identical articles seem to exist for other people with very similar backgrounds?

Chris Ash135 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ash135, your article lacks inline citations as mentioned in my comments before, furthermore you need to disclose your Conflict of Interest - see WP:MINREF and [[WP:COI] and WP:NOTYOU. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ash135 (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ash135 First, please see the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. Your draft has no independent reliable sources to support its content. A Wikipedia article only summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. Please review the policies described in the message declining your draft.
Also, note that as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. Because of this, other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that those other articles are inappropriate as well. Please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:58, 27 February 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:244F:B58C:5990:AF1A


Paper.io doesn't have that much notability. That explains why there isn't a lot of references. However it is relatively popular. Note I play this game so these are in my words. This reads like an advertisement, though I wanted to separate everything so it would be easy to understand more. 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:244F:B58C:5990:AF1A (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If the subject does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:43:06, 27 February 2021 review of draft by Stevenmitchell213


Can someone take a look at [[1]] and see if it is 'ripe' for publication?

Stevenmitchell213 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Stevenmitchell213, please be patient - there are currently more than 4,000 articles waiting for a review, in the worst case it can take up several months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:42, 27 February 2021 review of submission by 174.255.129.84



Hello, why was my article declined? My colleague can write as neutral as possible. Any suggestions? Thanks174.255.129.84 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How neutral can my colleague write about? Any suggestions? So I need to pull out my peer review reesearch articles as a reference for my existence? Thanks Dr. Robb Kelly (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Also do I need to add that I have worked with celebrities? I can name them and Dr. Robb Kelly (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robb Kelly The best thing for you to do is not attempt to write about yourself; while not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. To be successful in doing so, you need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you. You don't need to cite your mere existence, but summarize what independent sources say about you.
Be advised that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robb Kelly (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you wikipedia community for the helpful suggestions! :)[reply]

00:58:08, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Ksk8m


All credits are accurate and a reputable source. They have been verified by check stubs and upcoming celebrity blogs. Ksk8m (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ksk8m IMDB is not considered a reliable source here as it is user-editable. If this person is in the credits of the films they worked on, the film itself is sufficient as a source, but you offer no other independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Mardula. This is why your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You seem to assert that he is notable because he worked with notable people; notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

08:18:26, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Manik733


Manik733 (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manik733 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources say about you. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess 331dot meant to link to WP:RS Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:27, 28 February 2021 review of submission by SharpSeaHorse

Can someone please help me with this page, it got rejected as being promotional, there are no endorsements in it. It was intended to be informational, Thanks in advance SharpSeaHorse (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SharpSeaHorse On Wikipedia, there is no difference between "informational" and "promotional". Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please see Your First Article for more information. Your draft offered no reliable sources at all and just told about the subject.
If you are associated with the subject, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:30:27, 28 February 2021 review of draft by JulianB34


Hello, thanks for take time to read me. After editing my first articles im waiting for submission. i wanted be sure that my sources are good JulianB34 (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JulianB34, your draft has been meanwhile reviewed and declined, please read the comments of the reviewer and after improving you are free to resubmit for review. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:52, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Alabama73

I do not understand why the amends to this page have been disqualified. Mika Simmons founded the Lady Garden Foundation that is a charity that has created a treatment for Ovarian Cancer which she lost her Mother to. And most recently she has been asked to work with the Government to close the Gender Health Gap. Her most recent film had 5 nominations and 1 win. Please can you tell us what the problem is here? Alabama73 (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Simmonds fails the criteria at WP:NACTOR I have nominated the article for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:18, 28 February 2021 review of draft by 171.98.76.84


My submission has been declined multiple times for 'submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia...'. Draft has been change 3 times and all link reference from independent, reliable and published sources. Can someone clarify what read like advertisement and how to improving draft? Thank you 171.98.76.84 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be an advertisement because it does nothing other than tell of the existence of the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offered seem to be announcements of routine business transactions, which do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you work for this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:06, 28 February 2021 review of draft by Kkmk mani


Kkmk mani (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly advise on correct publishing of the article, I have not comprehended your remarks, Dr. Michael Koutsilieris is a distinguished scientist and the article is based on his biographical information and scientific accomplisments.I cant understand how it can be charactirised like and advirtsment. How should I proceed?

I've responded to you at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:37, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Gaoyoude

Hello, I've been a registered Wikipedia user since 2010 with 96 live edits/0 deleted. I recently created my first article as an Autoconfirmed user. Within several minutes of publishing the page, another user, User:Lettler, moved the article to Draft space and then Afc. After some consideration, minor reworking of the article and investigation of User:Lettler, I would challenge the qualifications and motivation of Lettler to have interfered with my article creation. Since I would like to become more active in creating, reviewing and editing articles, I would appreciate a third-party review of this case. While I certainly welcome improvements to the article from the Wikipedia community, I'm quite sure that as it stands, the article meets the criteria for publication. I would like to move it to article space and would appreciate your review of this case. Thanks! Gaoyoude (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaoyoude: You make it sound like some sort of sinister conspiracy. As far as I can tell from looking at the version of the draft before it was moved, there is a lack of adequate sourcing consistent with our reliable sourcing guidelines and our General Notability Guideline. Of the sources that can be accessed on the internet this would be the only one that might qualify as reliable, although I am not an expert on what physics publications are considered reliable. I think most people who patrol newly created articles would have moved it to draft space as well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your taking the time to explain, didn't mean to come off as overly paranoid! I don't entirely understand/agree with your view of sourcing, will get back to you soon with my take when time permits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaoyoude (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaoyoude, you might find the nutshell explanation in WP:42 a digestible summary Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:32, 28 February 2021 review of draft by Elron J


Hello, and thank you for your time. Could you help me understand why my recent Wiki edit was declined. Any direction would be greatly appreciated.

Elron J (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined because the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please note that press releases are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:47, 28 February 2021 review of submission by 174.255.129.84


174.255.129.84 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you Wikipedia team for addressing room for improvement! :)[reply]

23:03:22, 28 February 2021 review of submission by Developer Suleyman Ekici


Developer Suleyman Ekici (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Developer Suleyman Ekici: You haven't asked a specific question, and on at least three other occasions people involved with this draft have failed to ask specific questions about this article.[2][3][4] So what do you want to know? Not every album released necessitates an encyclopedia article for the rest of time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

06:20:08, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Anamikana Rajwanti

Shanaya Shukla is an Indian Author. This seventeen year girl has contributed her 7 books till now. She has been an inspiration among many youngster. would request you to re-review this and make suitable changes. Anamikana Rajwanti (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has no sources. It is unlikely to be considered further by reviewers unless you can support the content with multiple, reliable, secondary sources in order to prove subject notability. If the subject is indeed notable, then I encourage you to find said sources, as Wikipedia is always in need of more female/non-anglophone biographies. BlackholeWA (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:44, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Golam Maruf Hassan


Golam Maruf Hassan (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golam Maruf Hassan You don't ask a question, but this is the English Wikipedia, contributions need to be in English. There is probably a version of Wikipedia in your primary language if that is what you are looking for. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:20, 1 March 2021 review of draft by Marx J Engels


Hi! I found this Youtube video demo that I found helpful to describe the service. Should I be including it as a citation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aRi3l5lUqA

I've also added German news sources. Could someone comment about whether the sources I've used fit the Wiki requirements? I've submitted other drafts, but since they haven't been approved, I don't know if I am going about it the right way. Thanks!

Marx J Engels (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marx J Engels Sources that merely report a routine business transaction, such as the raising of capital or the purchase of a competitor, do not establish that this company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. A Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, not those that merely report actions of the company.
If you work for Passbase, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:49, 1 March 2021 review of submission by 67.76.114.156


A piece of press has been added which shows more notability.

67.76.114.156 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Interviews with those associated with the subject do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:34, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Jonhawkins1998


Hey!

I've just had a Wiki submission rejected, but I'm not sure why. The reason was "insufficient sources," but everything is properly cited to reliable sources. Could you possibly give me some more info on what I'm missing? Is there a specific part not referenced properly? An issue with my sources? Something else?

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


Jonhawkins1998 (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonhawkins1998, the reviewer left you this comment "Needs external news sources to show widespread notability for this program outside of the university." Self-published blogs and Twitter are not what we define as a reliable source, see WP:RS. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:00, 1 March 2021 review of submission by Lakewood66


Hello, I've been working on the article above for several months, including with help from other Wikipedia editors such as Jimfbleak, who was incredibly helpful. I've worked to find sources that are independently edited such as Facility Executive magazine and Plastics Machinery magazine, which do not simply repurpose company-issued news releases, but, instead, pay editors to write and edit objective content. The latest comments about my article indicate that it reads like an advertisement. I've asked the most-recent reviewer, Firefly, what specifically I could do to the article to eliminate any advertising-like language. My concern is the article might be removed before Firefly has a chance to respond. So in the meantime, what might be done to eliminate advertising-like language in my article? Where is the advertising-like language in your opinion? And what concern is there regarding the sources? I'm not sure where in the current draft there is an advertorial feel, but I'm certainly willing and able to address it. Thank you. Lakewood66 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood66 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lakewood66, just a short comment: the article will remain at least 6 months before it will be removed - regarding your questions pinging Firefly and Jimfbleak to get some light on it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - I’ll respond substantively tomorrow, but just confirming I’ve seen this and haven’t forgotten you. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to leave it to the reviewers, it's not tagged for deletion at present anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the reply, CommanderWaterford, Firefly, and Jimfbleak. And I look forward to improving the article with comments and feedback from Firefly. Lakewood66 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the draft was declined for two reasons - a tone closer to that of an advert or promotional piece, and not showing that the organisation is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. For the first point, I would suggest reading this section of the Manual of Style on encyclopedic tone, as well as perhaps some other Wikipedia articles about companies to get an idea of the tone and prose style we're looking for. As to the second point, the draft will need to show that the organisation meets our notability standards for companies. In short, we require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but I would recommend the following: read the full guide to notability for companies, identify the three best sources you have that show this company is notable, and post them on the Draft: talk page. Either I or another reviewer can then look to see whether we agree that the company is notable. I can say that I don't think any of the sources currently in the article will help, as most of them appear to be passing mentions of the company rather than in-depth articles about it. Hope this helps. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 15:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

00:44:48, 2 March 2021 review of submission by CoolGab19


CoolGab19 (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:45:26, 2 March 2021 review of submission by CoolGab19


CoolGab19 (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:56:40, 2 March 2021 review of submission by কিশোর পাশা ইমন


I tried to create a Wiki page for Emelie Hollow. She was the singer who worked with Alan Walker on the song "Lily" and was mentioned in the Wiki Article of K-391 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-391). I assume this topic has met the criteria to create a Wiki page on her. Still, it was considered as a SpeedDeleting-worthy material.

I did not understand this. If someone could be clearer about this issue, it will help me immensely. কিশোর পাশা ইমন (talk) 06:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Courtesy link: Draft:Emelie Hollow, template is borked)
The draft was speedy-deleted because it timed out. You can request it be undeleted at WP:Requests for undeletion; G13s generally are restored on request there unless the page has a history of being undeleted and then getting deleted six months to the day after undeletion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 07:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:55:19, 2 March 2021 review of draft by Arnold right


Arnold right (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I need to change the title of my draft as I have been requested to yet I can't find how to do this

08:12:04, 2 March 2021 review of draft by EditorofWorldAffairs


I am requesting help because I submitted an article to be published on Wikipedia but it got declined due to my submission being improperly sourced. I'm not completely sure as to how much more information is needed but if you could shed some light as to what a properly sourced submission would look like it'd be greatly appreciated. EditorofWorldAffairs (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising, will need completely re-writing in a neutral tone, referring to what reliable sources have reported. Any conflict of interest will need to be addressed too. Theroadislong (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:53, 2 March 2021 review of submission by 146.199.189.161


146.199.189.161 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:39, 2 March 2021 review of submission by Akarnikos

I have updated this article and would like it reviewed. Akarnikos (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akarnikos, your draft had been rejected 3 months ago and will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:36, 2 March 2021 review of submission by Ask4akki


Ask4akki (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ask4akki You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:14, 2 March 2021 review of submission by ThomasB 403

I wanted to ask the reason for it being declined. ThomasB 403 (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThomasB 403 The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer, at the top of your draft(both in the decline notice and in a comment underneath). Do you have questions about it specifically? 331dot (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:56, 2 March 2021 review of submission by E.tsymbalenko


I corrected all problems in the page. Please, check and make not "Draft"

E.tsymbalenko (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:44:38, 2 March 2021 review of draft by JudeJnr


I have fixed the "Comment" on the ongoing review, while I wait. JudeJnr (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

01:37:11, 3 March 2021 review of draft by 1.136.107.137


1.136.107.137 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to completely, thoroughly, totally, and permanently delete a Wikipedia account?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1009939100"