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 2a02:8109:9880:7598:c0d6:ad1c:dcc9:ced8 (talk) at 09:59, 28 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


March 22

00:20:32, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Gprivitera


Gprivitera (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm trying to publish my draft, and it returns ever:

"This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Marco Camisani Calzolari, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one."

The last version is not as the first one, and i have edited and corrected my draft, as suggested from the admin after the first submission, but every resubmit is useless and admins consider the first draft, and not the last corrected one. Please help me. Thanks in advance— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprivitera (talk • contribs)

Hello Gprivitera, both drafts are created by you. And both are about the same topic. We cannot have multiple articles on the same topics. I'd recommend you to merge User:Gprivitera/sandbox into Draft:Marco Camisani Calzolari. Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:24:25, 22 March 2021 review of submission by LittleBriarRoseTeam

I want to promote my game to more people who are interested as well as get feedback. Twitter would like me to have a authorized source so I can verify the game dev team account. I don't want to add spoilers on the page yet because the full demo isn't out. My request was also reject because I'm "too close to the content", but I hoped my description of how the game came to be was pretty neutral.

TL;DR: What do I need to add/change (besides a thorough description of the game and spelling/punctuation errors) to the draft in order to make it neutral and credible?

LittleBriarRoseTeam (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBriarRoseTeam, welcome to the AfC help desk. Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or the means of promotion. You seem to be too close to the subject and you might have WP:COI with it. Have a look WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV to learn more. Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LittleBriarRoseTeam Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements Twitter or other social media imposes on you to verify your accounts. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:19, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Deangelo Snutts


Wanting clarification why 3-4 published articles on a subject does not qualify it to have a wikipedia page? It is a phenomena that exists, is documented, and has sources to back up the claims in the article. Thank you.

Deangelo Snutts (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deangelo Snutts The draft is little more than a product advertisement. It looks like most of the sources do not mention the particular product described specifically, or only do so briefly. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google The Holy Grail of Cum. There are dozens and dozens of internet forum threads on it on dozens of websites and several articles. It's a well-known thing in many communities. The primary sources provided are from online news and lifestyle outlets that cover lifestyle topics, and are used as sources elsewhere on this website. Do I really have to walk you through why saying 'it needs reliable sources' when that was already in the original decline reason is the pinnacle of tedium and timewasting? Next time can you actually go into the articles and state what is not reliable about them? I don't really want to have to tell you how to do your job. Next time an actual explanation beyond 'well it just seems like an ad' when it clearly isn't and there is literally nothing advertised, and then just reiterating the decline reason that was already given with no elaboration whatsoever would actually be much appreciated. Deangelo Snutts (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deangelo Snutts For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. I did elaborate on the reason. The sources you provided mention this product little, if at all. Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the subject itself by sources. Forum threads are not considered reliable sources. Advertising does not just mean soliciting customers or selling something on Wikipedia; merely telling about something is considered promotional here. The draft just tells about the product and what it does- that's not what Wikipedia is looking for. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, but I never used forum posts as sources. My point on forum posts was to show it is a widely known thing, and the sources themselves, which are reliable journalistic/online article sources back that up/

> The draft just tells about the product and what it does- that's not what Wikipedia is looking for.

No it doesn't. What product. There is one line saying that numerous companies have created varieties of the formula. That's literally it. There are probably hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles on actual products. The draft does not tell about any product, it tells about a formula of ingredients used to change male physiology it never once mentions a product. Did you actually read the article I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deangelo Snutts (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:47, 22 March 2021 review of submission by Adiepp


Contrary to common understanding, I want to show that the LCOE definition used by WIKIPEDIA is mistaken. I want to point out the source of the error and suggest the proper definition, using the mean value theorem for integrals. Adiepp (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adiepp, please edit Levelized cost of energy with correctly cited material. If you intend to make large changes please us the talk page there to seek consensus Fiddle Faddle 12:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:12, 22 March 2021 review of submission by VaJaMe

Hi, as the board of the World Federation of ADHD has summarized its strength and collected several new sources, we would like to submit the article again with different references. Please let me know how to proceed, many thanks! VaJaMe

VaJaMe (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VaJaMe, "we" concerned me, Please see WP:PAID.
This draft is a sycophantic alternate web page about the org. You need to take the following actions:
  1. Make any relevant declaration of WP:COI especially after reading about paid editing
  2. Find excellent references
  3. From those references exact the facts you wish to highlight
  4. Set those facts into a storyboard
  5. Write an entirely new, neutral, factual, tightly written draft contaomong only those facts and citations
  6. Submit that draft for review
The existing draft will not be considered further, It has been rejected Fiddle Faddle 12:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:33, 22 March 2021 review of draft by Petkraw


I read and understood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists

However, none of the articles in the category of genetics organizations seems to fulfill the notability criteria: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Genetics_organizations

I, therefore, need guidance on how to reference significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources.Petkraw (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petkraw (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petkraw, no one article sets a precedent for any other article.Thsi means that the others require improvement. Please plough your own correct furrow by providing excellence of referencing. WP:ACADEME may be of some use to you here.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
These references may include peer reviewed significant papers. Significant in this context means cited often in this arena. Ideally they shoudl not all be under the same authorship Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input on this page. Finding "independent" references is difficult in such a situation - human genetic organizations, like the AGD, would probably only be referenced by other genetic-related bodies/orgs, which as I understand it, would then not be "independent"? The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the references also need to be "significant" peer-reviewed ones. This is easy for a scientific subject, much more difficult for an organization. Is there precedent or good examples in Wikipedia from other scientific organizations? Shahmoo (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahmoo, it may be the case that the association is one of those entities that is useful but is not notable in a Wikipedia sense Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent thank you. I am new to this. Would "useful" not make the cut for a Wikipedia page then? Shahmoo (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shahmoo, unfortunately people often confuse useful with deserving an article by being notable. An example is a celebrity. Many are useless, but are notable. They get articles. Your local street sweeper is useful, but not notable, They do not get an article Fiddle Faddle 13:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:59:24, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sfwspc


I would like to clarify if I could not create a new Wiki article under new journal name? Do I have to put the new journal name under the wiki article of former name? Thank you.

Sfwspc (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sfwspc, Instead, please edit Journal of Computational Biophysics and Chemistry Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:17:23, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Maria Inês Figueira


I just wanted to know what is the update on this article. It has been resubmitted and is part of Woman artists project, but for weeks no reply regarding is acceptance or not. Kindly let me know, will be glad to provide any further info you require. Thank you!Maria Inês Figueira (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maria Inês Figueira. The draft has been in the pool to be reviewed for three weeks. There are 5,275 other drafts in the pool, the oldest of which has been waiting 4-5 months for a review. There are many ways you can help improve Wikipedia while you wait. See Wikipedia:Task Center if you are not sure where to start. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:25:41, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ArthurRobertRobert


How is the article not neutral? I do refer to many published, independent sources in the article, actually. How, specifically, is it too much like an ad? The draft article contains factual information and points to neutral sources, like the Globe and Mail and IMDb.


ArthurRobertRobert (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is never a reliable source and www.frontrowinsurance.com clearly isn't independent. Do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:05:22, 22 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SeanRMull


I am wondering what it will take to get this page published? I have seen pages with similar content matter get published and I feel as if it offered the same or less infomration that is being offered on this page. I assure you I am not trying to be difficult. I am trying to get a better understanding of how I can contribute more to wikipedia. I have read the suggested artciles about page creation as well. Any constructive feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! SeanRMull (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SeanRMull (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE. The existence of other poorly articles does not mean we need more. We need less actually. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:30, 22 March 2021 review of submission by TonciJajic

The article was completely redone, would like a review if it fits the posting policy now. TonciJajic (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy: Article had been rejected 2 years ago, missing AfC Submut now, new Editor=COI. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommanderWaterford thanks. Added AfC Submit. TonciJajic (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Charin

Dear all, I have been working very hard on improving my article and I followed good feedback from many moderators to improve the article. It was on the live pages for some time and I also contested the deletion and it was approved. The advertisement flag was taken off by one moderator as well once I made improvements to making the article to be more neutral sounding. However, now once again it has been sent to the drat pages by another moderator and my review has been declined and flagged. Can someone please help me understand what's wrong. I am a Sri Lankan citizen who wants to help the Sri Lankan music community and I believe this artist has a notable body of work, both in his academic musical achievements and the milestones he has reached as a Sri Lankan musician in the international market. Please help me. Appreciate the help. Thank you!--Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first cleanup tag says, "This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism". Let's examine the first paragraph.
  • "He began gaining attention in the music scene in 2016 after releasing his cover of Coldplay’s “Clocks”." For this you cite an interview in which he announces the upcoming release. The source cannot possibly demonstrate that he "began gaining attention" after the release, so don't cite it for this statement. It is a primary source in which the musician talks about themselves and promotes their work, so it does nothing to help establish notability. Is the statement supported by anything in the body? You write that the cover made it onto two iTunes charts. Wikipedia: Record charts says that charts pertaining to only one specific retailer should not be used. Writing about where the cover placed on a bad chart, such as iTunes, is promotional, and should be removed. After that, the body lists nine more releases, but there's nothing - no reviews, charting, sales, touring, awards, prizes, rotations, etc. - to support the "gaining attention in 2016" claim.
  • "He is a voting member of the ‘Songwriters Hall of Fame’ (New York)." For this you cite two reprints of a press release from 5TRAWBERIFIELD5, a creative collective founded by Mendis. Anyone who is a music industry professional and pays $50 can be a voting member, it's no big deal. You make him look like a chump for gushing over it, although more likely he was taking the newspapers and their readers for chumps by doing so. Nonsense like this doesn't belong in a Wikipedia biography.
Skimming the rest of the draft, there are more interviews, such as the one in Cosmopolitan Sri Lanka, and more press releases, such as the one reprinted by NewsWire and The Morning Leader, none of which do anything to establish notability, and all of which contribute to the promotional tone. There's more nonsense around the Grammys. Being invited to them is not the same as being nominated for one, or even performing at them. Being invited to the ceremony is insignificant enough that no reliable source tracks the nationalities of invitees. The draft shouldn't mention the Grammys. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce (talk) Thank you for all your pointers. They were truly helpful to understand the areas I need to work on. I will work on it. Also just one other question regarding the Itunes charts..Is it really not allowed to put iTunes chart info? I have seen many articles such as Ed Sheeren's own wiki article that has iTunes chart info. Also I have used the Whales report to cite this chart info. Whales report in an international industry report, is it not? So is it not notable? Can you please clarify this. Thanks!--Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Record charts is clear that single-vendor charts cannot demonstrate notability through charting, and, barring special circumstances that don't apply to Draft:Charin Mendes, are unsuitable for inclusion in article prose. Ed Sheeran appears to violate this guideline. That an article violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is a reason to clean that article up, not a reason to create additional unsuitable content. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. I don't know whether the Whale Report is notable, but it does not appear to be a reliable source. Being in it does not help establish notability of a musician. For sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce (talk) Thank you. will go through these. best regards, --Tashiya Jayatilaka (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

01:16:04, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Drkahless


Hi, ok. So this is confusing for a newbie. We received an email tonight from someone at "Wikipedia Writing" claiming the page in question was being declined as it was written by the person it was about. It was not. However it looks like they are consultants looking to make a fast buck or something and so I am trying to write you. I am writing this evening with regards to a Wikipedia page I was the lead creator on. The page was created for Professor George Bullerjahn. Professor Bullerjahn is the current director of the Great Lakes Center for Fresh Waters and Human Health – but of course I guess you know this as you have apparently reviewed this page.

Unfortunately you made an error if you declined the page because you thought it was written but the subject. Professor Bullerjahn did not create this page and had no knowledge of its creation while we were doing it (Professor Bullerjahn is a somewhat humble academic). A number of research scientists, led by myself and Professor R Michael McKay (the Director of the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research at the University of Windsor) are the authors. We of course have had feedback from multiple academics around the world (including in Russia, Israel and across the United States). To this end this is definitely a community driven effort and not one created by the subject of the page. It was entered by me since, because most of us are Wikipedia novices, we worked using word documents then I sorted out how to post stuff.

To this end your decision on declining the page seems incorrect and I assume it can be restored. Of course if there are other issues I would love to try and work on them too. Just so you know the Nov 2020 date corresponds with an online retirement party that 80 of us threw for Professor Bullerjahn on his move to Professor Emeritus. We had in fact been gathering the data and information since August. But on that week in Nov we posted the draft for all the contributors to see it was real (and to tell Professor Bullerjahn).

anyways, please let me know if there is a way to correct this (and to be honest I am not even sure I am coding this correctly in this box) sww


Drkahless (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That email is almost certainly a scam, so ignore it. Unfortunately, short of you disabling email, there's no way for us to prevent mercenary editors from trolling AfC in search of new potential marks to rip off. As to the draft itself, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason whatsoever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. Anything less is grounds for a summary decline, and is in fact why it was declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


OK. Thank you. As to the incident you refer I am not aware of it...I guess I can look it up. But to the claims in the article and those claims being challenged. All of the scientific claims are linked to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. This is a much higher standard than anything Wikipedia produces...but it seems you want things linked back to Wikipedia? To me, self-citation is the weakest form but ok...or is it just the personal components that are of issue? Please understand I am trying to understand. I can fix those (although I find it strange that you claim external links are bad - one would think a link to a State University page would be considered a very strong reference. For the personal information I can likely provide information linked back to news stories, etc. as most peoples personal lives are not on Wikipedia.

Again, apologies for my lack of understanding and I do appreciate the help and advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkahless (talk • contribs) 12:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 23, 10:15 (EST). OK. I have gone through the article as per all the suggestions. I am sure there are other errors you will find. Still not sure where the "advertising tag" isDrkahless (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bit off the mark. Our biographical policy as regards people who are still alive or have recently departed is that every biographical claim in an article that could potentially be challenged - regardless of who or why - must be cited to a third-party source that verifies the claim. If no such source exists, the claim must be removed. The issue is not the scientific claims as much as the ones about him specifically - Education and Training and Personal Life. especially. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:40:55, 23 March 2021 review of submission by 180.246.37.36


180.246.37.36 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:15:07, 23 March 2021 review of submission by StoshK21

The Donna Campana Drake page was declined due to not being able to verify the info, even though I included bulleted reference list with sites, and in the correct format. Along with info brought directly from the source. It also mentions there were corrections made, I would like to know what those corrections were. StoshK21 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StoshK21, welcome to the AfC help desk. I had a look at your draft. The references are not placed at the proper places. Have a look at WP:REFB, WP:IC, WP:CITE and WP:YFA.--Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:24:18, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Chasity Ent


Chasity Ent (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chasity Ent, you didn't asked a question. But I'd recommend you to follow the comment by reviewer and read WP:IC, WP:REFB and WP:CITE.--Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Shah Kinchitkumar Arya


Shah Kinchitkumar Arya (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah Kinchitkumar Arya: I am afraid that drafts only containing an infobox are not siutable for Wikipedia. The absolute miminum would be a WP:STUB that is verifyable and shows how this subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of the term "notability". If this is an article about yourself, please also have a look at Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and, judging by the birth date, WP:Guidance for younger editors. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:24:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by WikiIndustrialComplex

I need another admin to inspect this article, despite making the appropriate changes, User:Dan arndt has been completely unhelpful at best and downright obstructionist. He appears largely ignorant of how these articles usually appear, handwaving and dismissing me concern as "other stuff exists." I believe it would be best for all parties involved and for the article itself if another admin besides User:Dan arndt reviewed it.

WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiIndustrialComplex Anyone may review article drafts, not just admins. The advice you were given is correct. If other articles are the same way, perhaps those articles should be treated similarly to your draft. If you have a consensus that says otherwise, please offer evidence of it. I'd suggest removing your comments from the draft itself since they technically are part of the draft at the moment(and also formatted as section headers). You may respond to the comments on the draft talk page- but please do so without making personal attacks and name calling. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a similar example, at one point the mere existence of a school or university was enough to merit it an article, but that is no longer the case. Standards can change over time. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an article for the A&B embassy is causing major confusion, particularly on Google, because it doesn't have an article. It moved out of a space it shared with 4 other nations, but is not there any more. As such, many things on both Wikipedia and Google default to using this older address. I just thought I was being helpful, I would have never put this much effort in the article if I thought the process would be this difficult. Please show some mercy, I just want the article to be put out there so that I can it be further improved upon, I will even add coordinates and literally drive into DC (I live nearby) to take a picture of the NEW embassy just to make the article that much better. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I should also say that I have never encountered an editor as obstructionist as User:Dan arndt, and the fact that I have made recommended changes and continue to be rejected, when all he has demonstrated in terms of knowledge of this type of article is nothing about absolute ignorance. Embassies in DC are considered notable enough because of the geopolitcal prominence of the US and the importance of the foreign countries' embassies in DC as part of broader global diplomacy. This is the only embassy article to get this kind of treatment, my question is why? I really hope it doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Antigua and Barbuda is vast majority Black. Regardless, it felt like User:Dan arndt's building background was preventing a diplomacy/foreign relations perspective to break through, he was only responding literally to the embassy as an actual structure. But an embassy is more than that, isn't it...? I really want to give users the benefit of the doubt, but User:Dan arndt has never given that to me. As such, I believe he should be held accountable for this rampant obstructionism. WikiIndustrialComplex (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiIndustrialComplex You will need to contact Google for any issues involving Google; there should be a feedback or contact link in the Knowledge Panel(which is what I assume you are referencing). Dan ardnt is probably evaluating it as a structure since the draft does little more than tell of the existence of the embassy. Articles like Embassy of Russia in Washington, D.C. do a little more than that. Dan arndt might respond better if you stopped calling him a tyrant and ignorant and "the worst kind of Wikipedia editor" and saying he's racist. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand WikiIndustrialComplex's frustrations. I have attempted to explain myself on his talkpage. The issue is that embassies are not inherently or automatically notable - there are numerous AfD on embassies that justify my comments (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Colombia, Santiago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the State of Palestine in Sri Lanka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Sweden, Tirana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Germany in Palestine). If however the user is arguing that the function of the embassy is notable then that information should be contained within an article on the international relations between the two countries in question not on the embassy page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt They decided to go and create the article anyway. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot that's a shame - have lodged an AfD so that it can be discussed and he can argue why it is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:29, 23 March 2021 review of submission by VaJaMe


VaJaMe (talk) 09:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice, Fiddle Faddle. Of course, the text will be adjusted and new references added. They are already numerous. I am wondering why other societies, federations and associations such as the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society or the International AIDS Society are not forced to do so. The MDS list for example ONLY their association website as source, so - where is the difference? Btw, I am not paid by the World Federation of ADHD, I am paid by the Verein zur Durchführung Neurowissenschaftlicher Tagungen e. V. VaJaMe

09:36:59, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Jhilam RoyChowdhury


Jhilam RoyChowdhury (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Lafc|username=Jhilam RoyChowdhury|ts=09:36:59, 23 March 2021|link=

11:56:08, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Mivida2021


hi.. i want to change my title from canadian chamber of commerce, Egypt to Canadian chamber of commerce-middle east. I was wondering if its possible to do now as my draft is pending for approval. kindly let me know your suggestions. thank you. Mivida2021 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mivida2021,  Done. Fiddle Faddle 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
wow..Thanks a ton.. Mivida2021 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:42, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Gracemicnaij


Greetings, i tried creating a page on Gazette Nigeria which is an online newspaper medium but it was rejected. i kindly request for it's creation. Thank you Gracemicnaij (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gracemicnaij, all you have to do is the work the reviewer suggested. Another reviewer will then review it after you resubmit. Wikipedia may never be used as a reference. Please use Wikilinks instead. See WP:CIRCULAR. Those faux references must be replaced.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 13:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:55, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Bailando bana


Hello i am new on creating articles at wikipedia,my article was declined and now i have made some changes that are requested! Please its can someone help me if there is another issue on my article? Regards

Bailando bana (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:00:35, 23 March 2021 review of draft by Lazargang1


Lazargang1 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:13, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Daivasparsha


How to add the photograph and could you please help me in saying why the arcticle was not selected



Daivasparsha (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daivasparsha, before adding a photo you should add some references and sources, the reason why it was declined is explained in the reviewers comments. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:MINREF , if it is a biography it needs mandatory inline citations WP:ILC. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:08, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Athousanddaysbefore


I'd like to request a re-review based on one moderator's reconsideration that this article does indeed meet the requirements of notability based on the band's acceptance of an Austin Music Award as documented by the Austin Chronicle, a notable publication based in Austin, Texas: https://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2019-03-01/here-are-your-2018-19-austin-music-award-winners/ Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss your sources.
  1. http://charts.bdsradio.com/bdsradiocharts/charts.aspx?formatid=54#C21 doesn't corroborate the claim it's cited for because it's set to always pull for the most recent week.
  2. https://www.austinchronicle.com/austin-music-awards/year:2018/category:best-performing-bands/2452622/ - I am unsure how prestigious this award is and whether it would help for notability or not.
  3. https://www.statesman.com/entertainmentlife/20190228/austin-music-awards-honors-shakey-schneider-shinyribs-and-more - Too sparse. This is a name-drop and is redundant with the source above.
  4. https://schedule.sxsw.com/2019/artists/2014184 - Connected to subject. They played at SxSW, and so it may as well be connected to them.
  5. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=296434 - Connected to subject. Evidently they played at this council meeting.
  6. https://www.therockpit.net/2018/black-heart-saints-announce-road-to-sturgis-tour-2018/ - Connected to subject. Press release.
  7. https://metalinjection.net/news/drama/puddle-of-mudd-deletes-facebook-page-after-being-booed-off-stage - Irrelevant. If it doesn't discuss the band proper, it's useless as a source.
  8. https://www.metalinsider.net/social-networking/puddle-of-mudd-delete-facebook-page - Irrelevant.
  9. https://www.metalsucks.net/2015/06/29/puddle-of-mudd-booed-off-stage-delete-facebook-page/ - Too sparse. Doesn't help for notability, but it can be used to cite the claim they took over Puddle of Mudd's social media.
  10. https://www.statesman.com/entertainment/20200206/sxsw-adds-margo-price-yung-baby-tate-meacutelat-more - Too sparse. Name-drop.
  11. https://sweetwaterstudios.com/workshops/black-heart-saints/ - Can't assess because the source is literally password-protected.
The sources I did not list above are ones I can't judge due to this largely being outside of my area of expertise. But the fact that I've listed most of your sources should be a red flag. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for reviewing. If the question is about how prestigious the Austin Music Awards are, I would like to follow up with a bit more for your consideration. The following is a link to an archive detailing the awards for each year dating back to 1982, when the awards were first started: https://www.austinchronicle.com/austin-music-awards/winners/

The awards are managed by the Austin Chronicle, which is a notable publication as evidenced by its inclusion on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Austin_Chronicle

As Austin as known as a "music city" along with the likes of other cities such as Nashville, it can be established that the award is prestigious in the music community. Interested to hear your thoughts on this and thank you again for your time.

Athousanddaysbefore (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a Wikipedia article does not make a source acceptable. The Daily Mail and The Onion have articles but are never going to be seen as acceptable sources. See WP:Reliable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And my concern is indeed the prestige of the award. More specifically: Is the award recognised at least statewide? If so, then odds are you can make a good case for notability based upon that, but again, you'd also need to get rid of the other useless sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:24, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Iamcybulski

It was very disappointing that Dan Arndt recently deemed that Sery Kim does not "qualify" as notable enough to be approved for an article. It seems that notability determinations are influenced by sex and race. Her former colleague, Brian Harrison who is a white male, was approved for an article. He is currently running for the same congressional seat and is a former high-ranking federal government official (same as Ms. Kim) but has far fewer qualifications and accomplishments. Sery has numerous media appearances to prove her notability within several different professions including political strategy, political analysis, women's empowerment, and food and travel writing. These were all within notable and respectable media outlets such as Fox News, BBC, and CNN. If you simply google her name, you will clearly see that she is notable. It's unfortunate that a minority female does not get the same respect from the Wikipedia community. I believe this is biased view as to whom meets the criteria as notable. Iamcybulski (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamcybulski, please don't play the race and/or gender card. The two people are dissimilar. One is Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, a position that confers notability (0.95 probability) and the other is presented as a candidate for office.
Your job as creating editor is to assert and verify notability. Please see WP:NPOLITICIAN. Please continue to work on that
Wikipedia does not routinely publish candidates' profiles. There has to be something else that confers notability upon them.
If you can show, truly show, discrimination on any ground, including race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and so much more, then please make a correct and formal complaint in the correct location, backed by evidence. Wikipedia will not ignore such a complaint and it will be investigated.
There is a major tenet here, to assume good faith. An equal tenet is to make not personal attacks. Please review your post in that light Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim about a living or recently-departed person that could be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. Anything less is grounds for a summary decline. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:34:10, 23 March 2021 review of submission by Brandon.cody.jackson

I'm not sure why this page is being rejected. I have cleared up the wording from the page, and I'm solely trying to list my business on Wikipedia. Is there any additional info you'd like me to add? I can surely contact my manager and he'll be able to give me more encyclopedia-centric information.

Thanks.

Brandon.cody.jackson (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon.cody.jackson, If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that. Fiddle Faddle 23:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon.cody.jackson Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to be "listed", either by the business itself or others. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a business, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

04:40:18, 24 March 2021 review of submission by 2400:4050:A1A3:BD00:FC25:3109:A80B:4186


2400:4050:A1A3:BD00:FC25:3109:A80B:4186 (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look remotely like an encyclopaedia article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 05:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello IP, the draft has been rejected which means it will not be considered any further. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:13:56, 24 March 2021 review of draft by Eric-Jan van Kakerken


March 15, I have asked reviewer Jenyire2 on her talkpage for instructions on what should be improved. I did not receive an answer yet. Could you help me out please? Eric-Jan van Kakerken (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric-Jan van Kakerken, You will not get an answer. This user has been blocked indefinitely.
Your references are lacking. They are interviews with the principals, or passing mentions. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:20, 24 March 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:A039:A550:DC95:5454:A982


If added a new Important Reference - Fox 34 (News Channel). 2405:201:6:A039:A550:DC95:5454:A982 (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you attributed all your sources to "Express Web Desk"? None of your sources are acceptable; they're either press releases (Digital Journal, Zee/Yahoo/LatestLy) or written/dictated by the subject (Fox 34, his own website, Medium). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:48:38, 24 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Indiadiamond


I need help to create a wiki page for my boss this wiki page is too complicated. is there someone that can help me do it?

Indiadiamond (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance at a time. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is no. There is a further response at the Teahouse where you asked the same question. Theroadislong (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Indiadiamond and welcome to the AfC help desk. Remember Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, your family, friends or company. If you are doing so, we may have conflict of interest. Wikipedia should be written from neutral point of view with information supported by reliable sources to verify the information. Unsourced information may be challenged and remove. If this is the first article you want to create, I'd suggest you to read WP:YFA, WP:REFB, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. You should also see if the subject you are going to write about meets the notability policy. Anyway, happy editing! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:55, 24 March 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:A039:1C8D:CC1E:B9F5:7489


Please accept this article now as More Notable References have been added. 2405:201:6:A039:1C8D:CC1E:B9F5:7489 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:50, 24 March 2021 review of submission by 197.29.191.63


197.29.191.63 (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest they come anywhere near close to passing the notability guidelines.The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not only has it been rejected, the photograhs are of doubtful provenance on Commons and are nominated for deletion there Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:51, 24 March 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:A039:1C8D:CC1E:B9F5:7489

Added Notable References. 2405:201:6:A039:1C8D:CC1E:B9F5:7489 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Fiddle Faddle 20:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:46, 24 March 2021 review of submission by Barbarajrea76


Hello. I am a first time Wikipedia poster and my submission was rejected for the following reason:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

I am not sure which part was in question as I tried to have neutral voice and sourced many independent published articles to verify. I would like to edit and re-submit but I am unclear which portion of my post was problematic per their policy. Thank you so much for the guidance.

Barbarajrea76 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarajrea76, No, it was declined. Rejection is final. Being declined is iterative.
I note your correct declaration on your user page of being paid to create this draft. Please deploy {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the draft's talk page.
The thing about being paid while you write stuff here is the incongruity of asking volunteers to help you to earn your pay. Doesn't seem that fair, does it? Fiddle Faddle 20:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:56:55, 24 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jsolomon7


Jsolomon7 (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. --Finngall talk 22:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

04:53:59, 25 March 2021 review of submission by Jjphoenix


I received the good news that my page, Hurricane Alice (journal), was accepted. However, when I search for it in Wikipedia, any search for "Hurricane Alice" is redirected to the page "Tropical Storm Alice." I don't know how to fix this so that those looking for Hurricane Alice the journal are able to find the page without actually having to type "Hurricane Alice (journal)". Do I create a disambiguation page? If so, what's the best way to do that? Thank you!! -- JJPHOENIX

Jjphoenix (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjphoenix: I have created a hatnote at Tropical Storm Alice, so readers can find the correct article, using {{redirects here}} Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:00:34, 25 March 2021 review of submission by 69.63.69.90

It's because i encourage young and up-coming artist to make it as tk khunalo 69. secondly because not that you're a swazi or black does not mean you can't be described by google. 69.63.69.90 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any question but your draft has been rejected, it will not be considered any further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If your issue is with Google searches, you will need to contact Google for assistance, though I don't believe the race or nationality of the subject plays a role in search results. Race or nationality also plays no role in accepting Wikipedia drafts. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:51, 25 March 2021 review of submission by Jsolomon7

I am confused on why the references sources to Peter Jean Marie editorial is not enough for Wikipedia.

Jsolomon7 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jsolomon7 I've fixed your request to add the name of the relevant draft. The sources you provided(which also are not summarized in the draft) seem to be announcements of routine business activities or interviews, which do not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:54, 25 March 2021 review of draft by Johneagle24


I need guidance on why my submission was declined. You say This content would be better suited as a section of Catholic Charismatic Renewal, to prevent WP:POVFORK. However, I would maintain that it is not a fork caused by any disputed facts, but it is about a separate geographical area. In the same way that Catholic charismatic renewal in Latin America is a separate Wikipedia article. If a separate article is not acceptable, could it be a spin off sub article? Thank you. Johneagle24 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:37, 25 March 2021 review of draft by WallaceEMann


I am appealing the decision of rejecting my submission of Rachel Jackson (comedian). Some of the reasons given for rejection seem to be invalid given the fact that a lot of similar references are included in the page of fellow comedian Sara Pascoe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Pascoe. I also noticed something similar a few weeks ago with a British actress (I have forgotten who it was). There were very few citations and they were predominantly cast lists. How can one be rejected when others of similar, or even worse, referencing are included? WallaceEMann (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the existence and status of other Wikipedia pages as an argument for your own, especially when it comes to drafting (which didn't exist in any real state before 2011 and wasn't made a hard requirement until 2018). In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. Anything less is grounds for a summary decline. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:06:43, 25 March 2021 review of draft by 41.13.131.187


41.13.131.187 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

10:05:51, 26 March 2021 review of submission by 203.171.120.44


203.171.120.44 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:45, 26 March 2021 review of submission by Borneo220


Borneo220 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:00:29, 26 March 2021 review of submission by Jsprgry


Jsprgry (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


put the link at wrong place Jsprgry (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jsprgry You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not for people to tell the world about themselves, sorry. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:47, 26 March 2021 review of draft by 15700cathy


15700cathy (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there, have worked hard to remediate the mistakes in the original post of this contribution - followed it to the letter. I believe this guy has an important role in the early years, development and cultural diversity of the Jazz age as displayed by the citations in the bible -like journals of Jazz. Pleas let me know if you see any errors I can remediate before it reviewed, All good things to you all. C 15700cathy (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@15700cathy Your draft is awaiting review. There are many submissions and volunteers are working hard to review them, but there is no guarantee of their timescale, nor of their attention to this draft rather than to others Fiddle Faddle 20:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:46:31, 26 March 2021 review of submission by Artmotionpristina


I don't know why you rejected my page ? You did not give me any information ? Please give me any advice to complete the company page.

Thanks.

Artmotionpristina (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artmotionpristina If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your corporate reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:CORP does that. Fiddle Faddle 21:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:59:25, 26 March 2021 review of submission by Artmotionpristina


Hello, there i hope you are doing great. I just spent like 3 days writing the text and all infos for the company i work and after using like 6 hours of learning how to publish a page i finally did it and it looked very well but after submitting it for a review i got rejected and the reason was "blatant advertising" i mean i don't understand what this means ? Can you please help me with this issue and give me any advice or assist me how to solve this. My username is Artmotionpristina Artmotionpristina (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artmotionpristina I refer you to my previous answer, just ^^^ up there Fiddle Faddle 22:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:17:43, 26 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Remixone



Nankwe Hassan (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


March 27

00:57:29, 27 March 2021 review of submission by Miss.Morea

Can you review another time and can you publish and stop naming this nonesense, because this is the truth of life and of the illuminati and the enlightened people and towards that subject, if you all do around like that and call this nonesense, no wonder you dont know! If any edits need to be made, then please help me do that, by you doing it, because this is an big worldy matter and not an small one, as everyone who does not know wants to know! Miss.Morea (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creator blocked as WP:NOTHERE by 331dot Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:06, 27 March 2021 review of submission by Kash Up


Hello! I recently submitted an article about the school I go to. Unfortunately, it got rejected because it "read like an advertisement". It was suggested that I use neutral words. But I don't understand where I overly praised the school. Right now, I am trying to change the article. Still, I am quite confused on how the article reads like an advertisement. Please advice on how I can change my article to sound like it was made from a neutral point of view.

Thank you for your help!

Kash Up (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:25, 27 March 2021 review of submission by TheSokks

Trying to submit the draft for AFC review using the submit template but it doesn't appear to be working.

The Sokks💕 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSokks: could you elaborate a bit more on how it doesn't appear to be working? I have just tested in preview and it appears working. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you response. The yellow box was not showing when I tried to preview. I'll try again. Thank you. The Sokks💕 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt thank you! Its done. The Sokks💕 (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:26, 27 March 2021 review of submission by 41.162.188.226

I would like to request a Neville Sigauke page to be created. He is a Zimbabwean artist based in South Africa and he came up with a new sound that he calls Mbira Dze Hip Hop, A mixture of Traditional instruments and Hip Hop. You can jus google Neville Sigauke for more info. regards

41.162.188.226 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to request an article be created, that would be at Requested Articles- But be advised that the backlog there is severe. If you have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this musician, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician, you may attempt to create the article yourself using Articles for creation, but you may want to learn more about Wikipedia first. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:47, 27 March 2021 review of submission by Vidya90

I am not able to understand why the page suggested by me is not published. Please suggest as a specific case what is needed. I have seen many Wikipedia pages of Travel management companies. This is a canada based company having Global operations. Please help me edit and get this page and oblige. Thanks Vidya90 (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is just blatant advertising and fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:55, 27 March 2021 review of submission by 111.119.239.74


111.119.239.74 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not ask a question but the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:52, 27 March 2021 review of submission by Khillare


Khillare (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khillare, you didn't asked a question, but let me tell you, the Draft:Dilip Bhojraj has been deleted by Jimfbleak because it was a copyright violation. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 16:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:06, 27 March 2021 review of submission by Ashish Prakash APR


Ashish Prakash APR (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a venue for hosting your CV. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:13:31, 27 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Dans


I am told this article "reads more of an essay than an encyclopedia entry". I would like to hear more about what is expected from an article on the "Architecture of Slovakia". Thanks, --Dans (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:55, 27 March 2021 review of submission by FaarizPlayz

You people need better reviewers and much nicer. They all are rejected on purpose. :| FaarizPlayz (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Timtempleton I'm not sure how can I get better resources. I've tried. I'm still confused. FaarizPlayz (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, I didn't know you can't write self-biography or autobrigraphy or whatever it's called. Could you please leave this article? I know me more than anyone else (obviously) If not then, oh well, WikiPedia is boring website anyways. I mean not everything on Wiki is true. I know better website than Wikipedia. FaarizPlayz (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Can I write an article about something else then? FaarizPlayz (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this existing section for any follow up comments, instead of creating additional sections. You can write another draft if you wish, but you may wish to gain experience by editing existing articles first. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

02:38:13, 28 March 2021 review of submission by Downsize43

Draft:List of tourist drives in Queensland This Draft was submitted last November, and I would like to know when it will be reviewed. Downsize43 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Downsize43 Accepted I'm afraid sometimes even a straightforward acceptance takes a while. There is a huge backlog. Fiddle Faddle 07:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:33, 28 March 2021 review of submission by 2A02:8109:9880:7598:C0D6:AD1C:DCC9:CED8


2A02:8109:9880:7598:C0D6:AD1C:DCC9:CED8 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC) My article on IKAR INDUSTRIES was declined, even it included a lot references related to the article. What else ca I do, to get notification?[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1014651248"