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 Pilotmichael (talk | contribs) at 23:06, 30 March 2021 (→15:58:07, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Pilotmichael). 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 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]

Wikipedia is not interested in what a subject wants to say about themselves, we are interested in what independent sources have written about a subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:47, 28 March 2021 review of submission by 194.223.56.83


The Australian Financial Review is a prominent secondary source that demonstrates notability

194.223.56.83 (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, the draft has been rejected by Hatchens. It will not be considered any further. Thank you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 13:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:22:52, 28 March 2021 review of submission by "Jhony777"


"Jhony777" (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i already submit the link of charts then why you are not accepting my client article again im pasting the link here for you that you can see this artist songs are in charts in france http://www.chartsinfrance.net/Kingsheharyarmirza/albums-singles.html this is the link please tell me after watching this--"Jhony777" (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)-Jhoney777[reply]

Hi "Jhony777". Pure charts (chartinfrance.net) are not one of the charts Wikipedia accepts as reliable and authoritative. For France, the choices are: SNEP, Hung Medien, and InfoDisc. The draft has been rejected, meaning that volunteers do not intend to review it again. If, after six months or a year, more has been written about the subject in independent, reliable, secondary sources, you can try then to write another draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:12, 28 March 2021 review of submission by Tajulhq

Please review the article, I've corrected so many things. Tajulhq (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tajulhq: Who is "we"? If you ahve any affilation with the subject, pelase read over WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropiate disclosures for your situation. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Sorry, This is something I actually made a mistake in writing. There is no affiliation with the subject. I would love to learn Wikipedia.

15:27:38, 28 March 2021 review of draft by MichaelPackBrewGuy


I am requesting help because I don't know why my submission was declined. These are the reasons that I am confused. I used 10 sources which is more than a lot of the rivalry pages, so even if not all of them are reliable some of them should be good. I also saw that an article like Eagles-Washington only used 1 source. I am definitely not an expert on reliable sources, but the source that that article has does not appear to be more reliable then mine. The person that declined my page said that my article had not reliable sources, but I did include one source on all the games of the rivalry, one source on incredible moments, and many sources about game-logs that I thought were good for the rivalry. I don't know what other kinds of sources I would need to get this article submitted. Please take what I said into consideration, and if there still is a problem can you write me back.

MichaelPackBrewGuy (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelPackBrewGuy You have sources citing games, but not sources that discuss a rivalry itself. Collecting some games together and calling it a rivalry is original research unless you have sources that call it a rivalry. Teams can play games together without a formal rivalry. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:17, 28 March 2021 review of submission by Hanan Ali Kofiah

Why is my page declined? Hanan Ali Kofiah (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanan Ali Kofiah, your draft does not have enough reliable sources to support the important informations given in it. Since this is a biography, it is also very important that the article must be well sourced. Please do find some reliable sources giving subject in-depth coverage and resubmit it again. All the best and regards. Kichu🐘 Need any help? 23:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:31, 28 March 2021 review of submission by MichaelPackBrewGuy

Are my new sources good now? I think I have 5 of my 13 sources that aren't about particular games, so I'm hoping that's what you're looking for.

MichaelPackBrewGuy (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:09:47, 28 March 2021 review of submission by MikeHejssjs


MikeHejssjs (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeHejssjs please confirm that you have read the big, pink notice on your draft. It tells you in some detail why. Fiddle Faddle 22:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


21:26:18, 28 March 2021 review of submission by SamH1991

To improve the article so it can go to submission SamH1991 (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SamH1991 Pease simply follow the review points made by the reviewer who pushed it back to you for further work. If you have questions please ask them first, then come here if you need even more information Fiddle Faddle 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:09:01, 28 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by HelperGirl0102


Hello, I submitted an article for review and it was flagged first for one of the referenced I used. The notification I received said the reference was blacklisted, which I didn't understand. It was the full link to a magazine article with valid info on the subject of my article. I eventually removed the reference and was able to submit the article for review. Then the article was rejected and it seems like it was due to a lack of references. Can you help me understand what a blacklisted reference even means? It wasn't a compressed link or anything so I'm not sure what to do about that. Can you help me figure that out?

HelperGirl0102 (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HelperGirl0102 We blacklist certain sites for a plethora of irregularities. The main thing is no blacklisted site provided a useful reference. I suggest you ignore sites such as this and concentrate on finding the best real references you can. Please note that Wikipedia may never be used as a reference. Please use Wikilinks instead. See WP:CIRCULAR. That faux reference must be replaced.
Your draft was not rejected, but was declined and pushed back to you for further work Fiddle Faddle 22:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

04:44:25, 29 March 2021 review of submission by BikyownK


BikyownK (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BikyownK, and welcome to AfC Help Desk. The Draft:Bikram Malati has been rejected by Hatchens. It will not be considered any further. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 05:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:49, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Xister-reply

Hello! I've received a message that my submission for this page has been declined because it "appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia" and it has to be written in a neutral point of view. First of all thanks for taking the time to make this review and leave me a feedback. I'm a newbie so I don't understand exactly why it is perceived as advertisement, please can you help me to improve the page to be compliant with wikipedia policies? Can you give me some examples of paragraphs that seems advertising? Because I thought they were simply descriptive of the school and I would like to work on them so that they are more neutral. Thanks! Xister-reply (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Xister-reply (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xister-reply The draft is an advertisement because it just tells about the school 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 school, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization.
If you are associated with the school, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:13, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Abhuwan14

I have removed un-used references and other references from google and amazon .

Abhuwan14 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhuwan14 and moved it to be an article. So there is no point in asking questions here Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:29:15, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Walezzy


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

@Walezzy Wikipedia is not for you to advertise your corporation. 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 11:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:55:16, 29 March 2021 review of submission by DrTES


Hello, I appreciate reviewers taking their time and checking the article. Checking the Wiki guidelines for notability in music, it says that there should be multiple publications (that basically don't recite press release). The band here have had printed and online publications in English and other languages, interviews, news (aside of the official press release). Romania doesn't have national charts. However, band's album made to iTunes national chart. Has released at least 2 albums on major label. The band has released 2014 Album and 2021 re-release album with Universal Music. Has been placed on national radio - since 2014 band's music is on Rock.Fm in Romania.

German Wikipedia has approved Scarlet Aura submission as an article there. I understand, that all this is very subjective. But for example, how this band is included in EN.Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magica_(band)?

I would like to have another look at the article and perhaps, if you can, suggest improvements (in more details). Thank you!


DrTES (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrTES I suggest you start with @SL93 who rejected it. If you can persuade them to reconsider, then we can move forward Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DrTES Your argument is convincing so I approved it just now. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:11, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Chaudhary Mohammad Aamir Nadwi

I want re- review because I want to new name Chaudhary Mohammad Aamir Nadwi (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaudhary Mohammad Aamir Nadwi I want a bacon sandwich Fiddle Faddle 11:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:58, 29 March 2021 review of submission by LoriAmour


Hello, I do not understand why the article i created is not getting accepted. I cited with footnotes as requested. Is it possible i can get specifc information as to what needs to be edited/ updated? Thank you.

The page I created is for Brandi Webb, i hope that helps you to find and review.

LoriAmour (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LoriAmour no Declined with a full rationale. This ought to help you a great deal. It is intended to do so. Fiddle Faddle 14:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:15, 29 March 2021 review of draft by Artandarchives


Dear Reader(s), Over 7 weeks ago I submitted this article for review, but it has not been reviewed yet. I have heard that there is a possibility to publish an article publicly before it is reviewed, is this correct?

Artandarchives (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artandarchives 100% correct. The review scheme is simply intended to help you avoid the traps and pitfalls of creating an article as a new user Fiddle Faddle 14:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:39, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Gotam502


Gotam502 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


17:49:19, 29 March 2021 review of draft by 6SyXx6


Just wondering when somebody will get to check out my revision with sources and references. It's been 13 days now.

6SyXx6 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. None of the Cagematch sources help for notability, the YouTube videos should not be linked to or cited at all, Profightdb has the same issues as Cagematch, and Solie seems a random blog and has the same issues as Cagematch. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:03, 29 March 2021 review of draft by Micadodd


Micadodd (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to add Wikiproject tags to a submission for review "Whatawhata Research Centre" and it says my draft page doesn't exist, but it won't let me create a draft page because it says the page already exists. I cannot find any such named page already created on Wikipedia.

@Micadodd: Hello, and Welcome to the AFC Help desk. I assume you want to ask for User:Micadodd/sandbox, because it is newer. The right thing to insert into the box on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags would therefore be "User:Micadodd/sandbox". Unfortunally I have detected a bug in the scripting behind that input boxes that needs fixing. I will add two WikiProjects manually. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:17, 29 March 2021 review of submission by 162.72.17.151



Request on 21:21:17, 29 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 162.72.17.151


21:23:03, 29 March 2021 review of submission by 2409:4053:41D:2BFF:0:0:1F67:88A4


2409:4053:41D:2BFF:0:0:1F67:88A4 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not for posting your resume. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:48:40, 29 March 2021 review of submission by Rbvp2000


Dear Reviewer,

I was told in a Q&A forum that the article has not been re-submitted, so I am re-submitting it here :) I am requesting a re-review because of two reasons:

1. I have added reliable journalistic sources that were absent before; 2. The entire previously submitted text was very incomplete and partially inaccurate.

I look forward to hearing from you :)

Kindly, rbvp2000

Rbvp2000 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


March 30

00:46:28, 30 March 2021 review of submission by 49.204.219.193


49.204.219.193 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:36:31, 30 March 2021 review of submission by 36.80.4.88


36.80.4.88 (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, the draft you are talking about has been rejected by Bkissin. It will not be considered any further because it is said that the draft is not notable. Thank you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 06:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:43, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Islimfit


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} I would appreciate assistance in helping me to revise my draft article to meet the Wikipedia policy so that it can be published. I did not intend to promote myself with the article and would therefore be grateful if necessary revision is made on it for speedy publishing. Islimfit (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islimfit, welcome to AfC Help Desk. I'm sure you are talking about Draft:Wale Adetona. As you can see the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered any further because the subject doesn't meet our notability policy. I'd recommend you to read WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY. The reason was well explained by Celestina007. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 07:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:21, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Sickminecraft45


Sickminecraft45 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 12:24:21, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Uma1704


My draft was declined and I would like to know what was the reason and what specifically do I have to fix. 12:24:21, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Uma1704

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Uma1704/sandbox

Uma1704 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:48, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Rasalghul1711

Hello, the article I mentioned above was rejected for not being notable enough even though my article is about the Indian journalist Manisha Pande who is quite relevant as she was awarded the Ramnath Goenka award; one of the most prestigious awards in journalism and she has her own show on YouTube: TV Newsance which gets a lot of views. So I do not see why my article was rejected; I used all credible sources for a notable person. Please rethink and re-review my article

Rasalghul1711 (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rasalghul1711. None of the things you've listed here or at reviewer Hatchens' talk page as reasons you believe "she is 'notable' enough", have anything to do with notability as Wikipedia defines it, except the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. The bulk of any article should come from arms length sources, in other words not things she or her employer have said/written (not 6 of the 7 sources the draft cites). Furthermore, sources used to demonstrate notability should be independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three such sources. The brief mention in The Indian Express in connection with the award is a start, but is insufficient on its own. If more hasn't been written about her yet, then it is WP:TOOSOON, and you should wait until more is. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:46:48, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 168.69.254.40


uh i did not make this

168.69.254.40 (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:07, 30 March 2021 review of submission by Pilotmichael


Dear Articles for Creation help desk,

I was referred to you by Wikipedia's <redacted> regarding the Exploring Wine Regions article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pilotmichael#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Exploring_Wine_Regions_%28January_31%29

Here is my email to <redacted> which should explain why I am requesting your assistance, and why maybe you should look into what new reviewers are doing, and not doing...

Dear <redacted>,

I don’t know what to do. I have followed your instructions and received input from several new article reviewers. I have been meticulous to be sure I have followed their advise and met (exceeded) the Wikipedia requirements.

Yet, the article got rejected again. This time I thought it would be best to ask the article reviewer who did the rejecting. I have written him four times over two months and he ignores me. This reviewer is new, he claimed only one year, and two months ago he brags about editing over 4000 articles. That is over 400 edits per month!! Clearly going that fast there can be no quality to anything he is doing. And being new, he is just whipping things out without out much time to put in any thought to what he is doing.

He says: "If you have any queries, you may ask me at my talk page.” Well, I have written him on his talk page four times over two months and he simply does not respond. I can imagine he has no time to respond if he is whipping out 400 edits a month. Don’t you think he should act responsible for his edits and rejections?

I cannot imagine this behavior is what Wikipedia wants for its quality. And it is affecting many people (I see others writing on his talk page and he ignores them too), not just me. I have been diligent to get it right. I know I have exceeded the requirements.

What do we do?

Michael


So, I am both reporting this reviewer which i hope you do something about, and i am frustrated getting this article approved when i have received much feedback and have been meticulous in going above and beyond in exceeding Wikipedia requirement.

Please help, Michael

Pilotmichael (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilotmichael (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Helpdesk - since I assume that you refer to the latest reviewer of your draft (three reviewers rejected it) I give a Courtesy Ping to @Eternal Shadow . CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Commander Waterford. Yes, the problem is with Eternal Shadow. Thank you for pinging him. However, what do you think of him ignoring inquiries about his actions for two months?

I worked with the Teahouse to get everything correct and compliant after the rejections. There should be no reason this does not meet the requirements now.

Pilotmichael (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael , I did not a full review of your draft but on first sight a reviewer will notice that 80% of your sources are self-published ones (all PDFs) - what is needed per Wikipedia:Notability (books) is coverage by independent, reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Please take a close look at WP:BKCRIT, especially paragraph 1. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking Commander Waterford. NONE of these sources are self published. They are ALL independent reliable sources. They are PDFs to memorialize the articles because they are all independent sources and there is no control over their deletion. In each of the PDFs are the actual links to the original articles where they were published.

Pilotmichael (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pilotmichael had I reviewed it I would have also declined it as advertising, content like "The book series delves into the discovery of wine in different regions of the world. The books are finely detailed narratives, photographic eye-candy, coffee-table quality, and easy-to-read travel guides complete with maps and insights about tourism hot spots." is just blatant promotional marketing and has no place in an encyclopedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong, that is word-for-word exactly what the independent journalist said in their article. So, you are saying, you want to change what reliable independent sources say? That would have no place in any reliable encyclopedia.

Pilotmichael (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it needs to be formatted as a quote with correct attribution. Theroadislong (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilotmichael I have left you a full comment in your draft detailing some of the obstacles between the draft as it is today and acceptance.
I take grave issue with your "''reporting this reviewer''", because we try very hard to work collegially. This includes expecting that you will do so, too. There are mechanisms for making reports about unwelcome behaviours, but this is not the forum. Before making such a report please note than the reporter is not invulnerable to criticism once a report is made.
I have no idea who Lawrence is, nor any interest. I refer you to Wikipedia:POSTEMAIL and suggest that you desist from posting your email correspondence here
I note your declaration on your user page of a conflict of interest. If you are the author then Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure applies instead. I will leave that formally on your talk page in order that you may answer it there, formally Fiddle Faddle 22:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong, the comments you left on the draft page are very helpful. Thank you very much. I will make these changes and resubmit.

Pilotmichael (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong, if you have a problem with reporting the user here, then you should take that up with Lawrence, one of your associates, who specifically told me to do such here and gave me the link to do such. I am only following instructions. Rather, I would think you would find it important to take issue with the reviewer for his actions instead.

Pilotmichael (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael what @Theroadislong said was Just blatant advertising whcih was both correct and helpful. The longer comment came from me as did the disquiet about your behaviour "reporting" someone who does not appear to me to have a Wikipedia account. And no, you may not link that name with an account. Please see WP:OUTING. Such an error is likely to lead to your loss of editing privileges, certainly for a period. (0.9 probability). Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle, well then I should have thanked you for the comments. These are very helpful and I am appreciative. Regarding reporting someone, I was told by one of your associates to bring that matter here. So, again, I am following instructions from one of your associates. And regarding their having an account, they are the one who did the comment on the draft page, so how is that possible without an account. They have a personal page as well which I mentioned in my letter. One again, this person has an account and I was told to bring the issue here. If all that is incorrect, then it would be more fruitful to bring this up with them.

Pilotmichael (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilotmichael Please understand that you have just wilfully doubled down on Wikipedia:OUTING which is a matter taken very seriously. I have made a report to our oversight team to request that they remove these references of yours. Others will judge any remedy.
I have no further interest in assisting you, precisely because of this act. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Doubled down? Doubled down on what?

Pilotmichael (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:17:00, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Lleeeooo



Lleeeooo (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do not ask a question, @Lleeeooo. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:25:45, 30 March 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 6SyXx6


Hey there, I have submitted this twice, the first time it was knocked back because I forgot to add citations and references. I fixed that. Then it was knocked back a second time. Now, if you understand pro wrestling, you will understand why this article needs to be made. Mike Moran aka Mean Mike aka Killer from The Texas Hangmen was a professional wrestler that wrestled in the AWA, WCW, WWC. As apart of the Texas Hangmen, he had a team with Bull Pain and eventually Tough Tom. He achieved more in the wrestling business than his tag team partners, I added the EXACT SAME references Frank and Tom have on their articles, plus more, and it still got knocked back. Can somebody please do a Zoom call with me and help me figure out what exactly it is that i have to do, and walk me through it? Its ridiculous that its been knocked back the 2nd time considering as I mentioned it has the same and more references than the aforementioned tag team partners.

6SyXx6 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@6SyXx6 I do not need to understand pro wrestling to push your draft back to you because the referencing is poor. With regard to the other articles, no precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1015160911"