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 2a00:23c7:5a9c:3f01:3089:880:82c7:a38c (talk) at 22:22, 4 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 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]

@Antonio Balsaq: I looked at your draft and did some minor editing, but couldn't find any sources using a simple Google search. Without sources, it will be hard to show that the subject is notable enough for an article. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:26, 3 March 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]
Got it, thank you! I'm adding companies in general. They're not clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marx J Engels (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 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]

JudeJnr, no Declined with a firm suggestion for further work Fiddle Faddle 10:12, 3 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?

I think you want the main Help Desk- but to answer you, accounts cannot be deleted, for technical and legal reasons. If the account is in good standing(i.e. not blocked) a courtesy vanishing may be possible, which randomizes the account name(among other things) but it is not possible to completely remove an account from existence. Most people who no longer wish to participate here simply stop using and abandon their account. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:45, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Warwick789

This page was published before being moved back to drafts because it wasn't using "reliable sources". The text is supported by references to academic papers. I thought that these were adequate sources? What sources should I be citing in order to get this page published? Or does it need more citations? Please can you clarify as I thought I was following the guidelines. Thanks. Warwick789 (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:28, 3 March 2021 review of draft by Nirmalayadav369


Nirmalayadav369 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalayadav369, You have had no obvious history with this drafted you ask no question. What is your question, please? Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:06, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Nirmalayadav369


Nirmalayadav369 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalayadav369, Wikipedia is not social media. Please use another site to post your profile. Thsi draft will not be considered further Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:32, 3 March 2021 review of draft by 2409:4042:EA2:6FC2:E19C:81B6:6399:7FB7


2409:4042:EA2:6FC2:E19C:81B6:6399:7FB7 (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ishwar Kumar is well known music composer and director in Music industry In india. He was composed Songs for well known Movie Rangeela Raja starring by Superstar of Bollywood Govinda As main lead.

But is said to be not a public figure so his profile is not acceptable....

Do the work suggested and you may discover that he passes WP:NMUSIC. Your job is to prove that he does. Fiddle Faddle 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:00:53, 3 March 2021 review of submission by R Ian Bowers


My draft article (Draft:William D. Timberlake) was rejected for a second time (with months delay between each) on the basis that the "submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

This is patently not accurate. Ask any person in his field, and they will assure you of Timberlake's notability.

How am I to convince the wikipedia editors of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R Ian Bowers (talk • contribs) 10:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timberlake (i.e. the subject’s proper name) has become a keyword (e.g. [1]), an occasional section heading (e.g. [2]), and has appeared even in multiple titles (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). Bayes, Darwin, Tinbergen and a short list of others have this kind of recognition. The mere fact that his obituary appears in American Psychologist (APA’s centrepiece journal) says that he is considered notable by the leaders of psychology (not everyone gets an obituary in AP). There is a Timberlake entry in Springer’s Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior ([6]), which is not designed as a biographical encyclopedia, and just the especially noteworthy people are included.

The importance of establishing the animal behaviour programme at Indiana University might not be obvious from the short treatment in the article; it changed the landscape of science in a profound and positive way, and sparked similar changes in many other universities. This point has been made elsewhere [7]. This is the sort of influence that doesn’t reflect in citation counts.

Let me also note that the Wikipedia guidelines state that a Festschrift is usually sufficient for establishing notability. Timberlake’s Festschrift [8] revealed a particularly extensive influence, not just among his former students, but even among field leaders. This included 20 (diverse) papers, each focused on how Timberlake influenced psychology.

I suspect many people are looking for Timberlake on Wikipedia and are surprised to not find him represented. I wrote the entry in order to fill that gap.

But a wikipedia article is not meant to be an argument about a person's notability. So how am I to convince the wikipedia editors of Timberlake's notability without turning the article into a sales pitch? I had thought I had been overindulging this pressure by mentioning award highlights and such.

1. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003497 2. Burghardt, G.M. & Bowers, R.I. (2017). From instinct to behavior systems: an integrated approach to ethological psychology. In J. Call et al. (eds.): APA handbook of comparative psychology: Vol 1. Basic concepts, methods, neural substrate, and behavior. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, p. 333-364. 3. Killeen, P.R. (2019). Timberlake’s theories dissolve anomalies. Behavioural Processes 166, 103894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103894. 4. Cabrera, F., Jiménez, Á.A., & Covarrubias, P. (2019). Timberlake’s behavior systems: A paradigm shift toward an ecological approach. Behavioural Processes. 167, 103892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103892. 5. Arnet, E. (2019). William Timberlake: an ethologist’s psychologist. Behavioural Processes 166, 103895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103895. 6. Arnet, E. (2020). William D. Timberlake. In J. Vonk, T. K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_2092-1 7. Arnet, E. (2019). William Timberlake: an ethologist’s psychologist. Behavioural Processes 166, 103895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2019.103895. 8. Special Issue of Behavioural Processes: “Legacy of William Timberlake” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/behavioural-processes/special-issue/10GTX28DGHR) R Ian Bowers (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R Ian Bowers, what exactly is your question? CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
R Ian Bowers, maybe you can try dumping all the sources you have into the talk page of the draft and have someone look at it. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 12:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. The above content is on the talk page now, but how can I get an editor to see/consider it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.102.69 (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@R Ian Bowers: I have left you some thoughts on the draft's talk page which I hope are helpful. Timberlake certainly has notability (0.95 probability). The discussion is about the verification. The draft talk page is definitely an excellent place to handle this discussion
Also, please do not forget to log in when posting in Wikipedia. Revealing your IP address may affect your personal privacy. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:26, 3 March 2021 review of submission by AV Humour


AV Humour (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references with proper citation and i believe that I've added enough references for review and publish of an article AV Humour (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AV Humour The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:55, 3 March 2021 review of submission by United World President


United World President (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


16:37:14, 3 March 2021 review of submission by United World President

Meenakshi Joshi is a well known Indian journalist. She deserves an article on Wikipedia. I've added all the information with proper citation and I believe that I've added enough references for review and publish of this article. United World President (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United World President, welcome to the Helpdesk - what exactly is your question? Your draft has been declined 5 timed and now is rejected, it will not be considered any further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:13:17, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Ali R Perth


Ali R Perth (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ive created this Kate Cherry page for a friend of mine (as a profile of her professional achievements and contribution to the arts industry in Australia). The info ie the dates have been supplied by her. The articles included (in the further reading section) refer to a number of the organisations etc she has worked for and back up the info she has supplied . Im unsure when you are profiling a person how else you can refer to the information.

thank you. Alison

@Ali R Perth: - Please read the comment the Reviewer gave you in his decline, your article is missing mandatory inline citations. Also please have a closer look at WP:COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:45, 3 March 2021 review of submission by Ttvk1nlive

Hey there, I wanted to create a wikipedia page because it is required to have to have a google knowledge board. I was hoping I could be told on how to get this further approved so my viewers, listeners, and followers can contribute to this page. I noticed since I wrote the beginning about myself I had to add that I did that. What do I have to put so I can say I wrote it and get this approved?

Thank you so much for your time, Ryan Ttvk1nlive (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ttvk1nlive Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". I must be frank with you- and I apologize- but Wikipedia has no interest in helping you enhance search results for you(such as through Google Knowledge Graphs), helping you connect with your followers, or in otherwise aiding your internet presence. We aren't concerned with any requirements imposed upon you by Google or others. The only thing Wikipedia is interested in is summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You have not offered any such sources. We are interested in what others have chosen to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. I might suggest that other social media outlets or alternative forums are more appropriate for your goals.
Be advised that a Wikipedia article about you is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:04:58, 3 March 2021 review of submission by BeaufordSleeper

Hey there Wikipedia people!

I just edited this page and wrote about one my favorite people. I can't tell if my edits were rejected or if the page was rejected.

Thank you! BeaufordSleeper (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeaufordSleeper The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. Please see my post to the person who I assume solicited your involvement above. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He just posted the link in discord saying he can't create the page. I follow him, so I wanted to share what I knew! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaufordSleeper (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeaufordSleeper, The person and the draft fail to show notability. The draft is a blatant advert. If you can create a good draft asserting and verifying their notability in reliable sources please do so. Please do not seek to share what you know. Wikipedia records only that which others have written. Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thank you for clarifying. This draft will not delete right? It'll take some time gathering all the resources. Once gathered do I create a new draft? or do I add on to this one.

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaufordSleeper (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BeaufordSleeper, This draft has already been deleted as a blatant advert. Please take the following approach:
  1. Seek references which meet the criteria summarised in WP:42
  2. From those references extract the fact that you wish to highlight
  3. Sort the facts into a storyboard order
  4. Create a new draft and write it, but write it tightly, and without any form of bias for or against. Stick only to the facts.
This technique will show you before you even consider submitting it for review whether the subject is likely to pass muster. No useful references means non acceptance.
Do not confuse quantity of references with quality. A short, well referenced, tightly written draft making a small number of salient points is highly likely to succeed Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 4

Request on 09:16:47, 4 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Hitch2413


Hello, this is Hitch. I need assistance because in spite of editing out things from my article. It seems to get declined for some or other reason. The editors are cool. They did help me understand all the things I should be correcting but I seem to not do it in the right way. So, I need assistance in order to rectify my mistakes. I would be glad if you could help me.


Hitch2413 (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:38, 4 March 2021 review of submission by Pearly9031


Pearly9031 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pearly9301 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:58:35, 4 March 2021 review of submission by GCKharian

Changes made as per Wikipedia guidelines. This new development should be put on Encyclopedia as it is a very good, visible housing project like Bahria town which so many independent sources are covering on their websites, some of which are put in references.

GCKharian (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GCKharian, You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:02, 4 March 2021 review of submission by Videos4world

Hi, I have improved my writeup and added reference. Please help me know if is worthy yet. I am worried it might be rejected forever :( Thank you. Link to my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Grant_Proposal_Video#Grant_proposal_videos_are_videos_versions_of_written_proposals_used_by_nonprofits_to_raise_funds_for_their_projects. Videos4world (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Videos4world, your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:27, 4 March 2021 review of submission by Jaideep singh098


Jaideep singh098 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaideep singh098, You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:24, 4 March 2021 review of submission by Buchererpianos.


THEN TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need.


Hello

I made this site for Jacksonville Theological Seminary. I wrote much more about it and then some people crossed things out. The website of www.jts.edu expalins you why it is important to have a Wikipeida website.

There are many aricles of students or professors who have taught there, like https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/myjournalcourier/obituary.aspx?n=kurt-william-huth&pid=158798789&fbclid=IwAR2oL9I_e7enezcEF_vhaz1IEzv4QtbODytWpioNid6iqELBSs-u6CUgvR4

These are the courses you can study there: http://www.jts.edu/web/catalogs/rmbc/pdf/rmbccatalog.pdf

I myself study there and have completed the 6th out of 10 courses.

Thank you.

Christof Bucherer, M.Div. (accredited by TRACS) 

-->}}

Buchererpianos. (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buchererpianos., I wish you well in your course. The things "someone crossed out" were copyright violations, something that must not be present. So they are no longer present.
Wikipedia does not care why the seminary may consider it important for an article to be here. It cares about simple notability and verifiability. Your job as the creating editor is to assert and verify that. The big pink decline box tells you what is required. Please confirm that you have read it. If you wish to resubmit the draft you must do the work. Please do not re-add the copyrighted material
Please be clear. JTS will never control the content of a Wikipedia article. It is not, absolutely not, a web site for jts. They have a web site. Please see WP:OWN Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:46, 4 March 2021 review of submission by 2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:3089:880:82C7:A38C


2A00:23C7:5A9C:3F01:3089:880:82C7:A38C (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, BUT IT’S STILL RELATIVELY POPULAR.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1010322143"