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 22:08, 19 April 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


April 13

02:27:20, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Beingsujan


Beingsujan (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion and will not be considered further. What is your connexion with the school? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:18, 13 April 2021 review of draft by Usama7124


Usama7124 (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:48, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Sharonlausl

09:19:48, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Sharonlausl

revision is made, please kindly take a look and leave your comment Sharonlausl (talk) 09:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharonlausl It is still contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an advert. You are at liberty to start a radically different draft showing notability and that it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but this one has been rejected and will not proceed. Fiddle Faddle 09:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:22, 13 April 2021 review of submission by Arvik8660


Arvik8660 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been deleted as promotional. If you disagree with that decision, contact the deleting administrator (Athaenara); if the response is not satisfactory, you may appeal to deletion review. We, however, cannot assist with deleted articles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:53, 13 April 2021 review of submission by 27.0.50.218

vaishnavvi shukla is a child celebrity She is working in film industry since 2009 she has done popular tv show udaan for more than 2 years as young Ragini, she is cine artist association member since 2014 please re -review 27.0.50.218 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, has been rejected, will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

00:37:45, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Rickeraser


Rickeraser (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Berrely, I hope you are doing well.

I would like of you help, because we put all References, with diffent sources, but unfortunately was not accept. The page of the label on wikipedia was a reference to Sculptor but not linked with the Sculptor band.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontiers_Records

Sculptor is a relevant band with more than 60k on youtube, with a big label.

Can you help me with it?

All the best.

Pinging berrely, to whom this message was apparently directed. I note that most of the references (e.g. YouTube, the band's website) are not reliable. See WP:MUSICBIO. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rickeraser. I rejected your draft as, after being declined 4 times, you still had not added references to show that the article is notable enough for Wikipedia. According to WP:MUSICBIO, you must meet at least 1 of the criteria listed for the article to be notable. As there is no evidence that the band meets any of the criteria, I went off the first criteria, which says that the band must've been:

the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

Looking at the sources, I could not find any fitting these criteria. 6 where self-published, one was from the label's website and others seemed to be from less-known magazines. I hope this helps you understand why I declined the draft. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 13:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:49:49, 14 April 2021 review of submission by AppuSunkad


AppuSunkad (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, minimal effort to address concerns of multiple reviewers. It has now been rejected and will not be considered further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:35, 14 April 2021 review of draft by 46.140.63.202


I need help understanding what it not working. I have made all the changes being asked, and used sources not from the subject of the page (so external sources) yet it looks more like an ad rather than an actual page of a renouned swiss entrepreneur in Switzerland. Thanks for the help!!

46.140.63.202 (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many things militate towards this being an advert. The references fail in so many ways. One is even a dead link.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The over-prettiness of the article with multiple unnecessary pictures screams advert
Please explain why you have written about this person, and from your logged in account Fiddle Faddle 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:51, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Nicole0305

What source is not reliable? Thank you. Nicole0305 (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole0305 IMDB is not considered a reliable source as it is user-editable. The Twitter account of this person does not contribute to notability, as that is based on what others say about them, not what they say about themselves. Announcements also do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:46, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Nlm94


Hello - I have redrafted an article 3 times and finally it was rejected. However, I have improved the article much since the first review and it includes newspaper articles with significant coverage, not just passing mentions, and other verifiable sources not connected to the subject of the article. Also, I have seen other articles on similar subjects (grassroots football clubs of similar stature ion England) published on Wikipedia and I used these as a guide to create this article. However, this one with seemingly more notable/external references, has been rejected.

As mentioned above, sources I have used to verify the article subject and deem it to be notable are: 3 newspaper articles (2 of which are entirely about the subject), 2 online official league handbooks to cross reference club achievements, 1 podcast interview conducted by an external sports journalist with the founder of the football club, 2 database league tables to cross reference information in the article, and a few other website each with a paragraph of writing or so on the article subject, again to cross reference information in the article.

Please can there be a rereview of the submission? What can I do to improve the article further?

Thanks you Nlm94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Is it possible to "recreate" the article? I believed the article to be well referenced but can collect more. Nlm94 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nlm94 The most well-referenced article can still not meet notability guidelines. The reviewer rejected it because they felt that the club does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization and that the chances of that happening were low. If you truly feel that the situation has changed since the draft was rejected, you will need to appeal to the reviewer directly.
I see that this is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have an association with this club? 331dot (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:00, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Giuseppe Ardolino


Hello, I already submitted this draft and it has been declined. I would like to know in which section I need to improve in order to respect Wikipedia's guidelines and try to publish it. I already followed some feedback but the draft is considered not in line with a neutral approach, and I want to understand the reasons. I am available to make all necessary changes. Really thanks for your availability Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say on your user page that you "have set up to introduce the new page on Sadas company to explain its history, market, and clients" that is NOT what Wikipedia is for. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:22, 14 April 2021 review of submission by 95.107.240.167


95.107.240.167 (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY is the applicable notability guideline here - This subject does not appear to meet the guideline. AviationFreak💬 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:31, 14 April 2021 review of submission by 104.234.16.3


104.234.16.3 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected and thus will not be considered further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:50, 14 April 2021 review of submission by SKPatel7991

Hi Wikipedia Team. I need advice on how to improve our article for the article to be accepted. I have provided reliable sources. What do I need to change or adjust so that I can make the necessary changes for acceptance. Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKPatel7991 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Who is "our"? Only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I received a response back from my earlier question. I am replying back to the question for SKPatel7991 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Who is "our"? Only a single person should be operating your account. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I am the only one maintaining the account. Is there anything I can do further to accept my article? Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SKPatel7991 Please edit this existing section to reply, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in the full desktop version, even in a browser on a phone or tablet. You may make a natural reply as if you are addressing me, no need to say you are replying to my comment.
Please clarify your use of the term "our". As I said, your draft was rejected, meaning that it won't be considered further. No amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the further clarification. I accidentally used the word "our" since I often use "our" in my own social media content writing. It was just a habit of my own writing.

SKPatel7991 How did you come to edit about this person? 331dot (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person's a client. I will review the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure with this person to ensure we follow the proper requirements for Wikipedia. Let me know if there's any other information I need to review for the requirements. Thank you.

SKPatel7991 So "our" refers to you and your client. You should have said that initially, but it doesn't matter now. If he is paying you for the specific purpose of creating an article about him, my suggestion would be that you return his money because it isn't going to happen soon. Aside from paid editing you should review conflict of interest. You will need to make the required declarations for any other clients you represent. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:33, 14 April 2021 review of draft by Hamidsaahir


I am requesting clarification on why the article for Attorney James Carter has been rejected. The reason states lack of notoriety however there once was a wiki page that existed for him which was removed because of defamation and slander. Also, there are other pages for people in his profession who have similar experience and notoriety who have pages listed.

Please advise.

Hamidsaahir (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamidsaahir Please confirm that you have read the contents of the big pink box, and noted that it has been declined, pushed back to you for further attention. Please return to this thread with any further questions. You will not need to create another unless this has been archived Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:26, 14 April 2021 review of draft by Em Assist


Hi, wanted to understand why my article was rejected even though I have given the reference site. Please help me to make this article live. How can I make this article live? I have seen many wikipedia pages few pages have one liner info and one reference site and it got accepted but here, I have written the history , given the reference site still it got rejected . Why? If you are saying it looks like adverting then how about other pages that are live on wikipedia with one reference site.

Em Assist (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Em Assist Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to pitch in and help, you could identify some of these other inappropriate articles you see so we can address them. That other inappropriate articles exist does not mean yours can too.
Your draft does little more than tell that the company exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you are associated with this company, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:49, 14 April 2021 review of submission by Khmer stooge


My draft article on Alvaro Morales was rejected because it apparently does not meet inline citation standards. I was advised to include footnotes, but my article contains several and I thought I had cited anything that would require citations. Can someone please offer more detail on what's missing from the article?

Thanks! Khmer stooge (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Khmer stooge it has not been rejected. It has been declined, pushed back to you for further work. @Tom (LT) will, I am sure, go into further detail for you. I'll leave a note on the draft myself to indicate what may be absent, but I have not reviewed it Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


April 15

00:37:50, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Logan Morrissey


Logan Morrissey (talk) 00:37, 15 April 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 social media for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:19:27, 15 April 2021 review of submission by LordGriot


LordGriot (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Helpdesk, How do I remove this notice from my page...

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (April 2021)

Thanks in advance.

@LordGriot: That is saying: there are no blue wikilinks leading to the article from other articles. Follow the blue links in the notice to learn how to fix the problem :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:53:45, 15 April 2021 review of submission by UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR


UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR (talk) 04:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)04:53:45, 15 April 2021 review of submission by UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR[reply]

When you have finished, click the "Publish changes" button or your request will not be posted!!!-->}}

@UJJAL SIKDAR or TUHIN SIKDAR: you didn't ask a question. Wikipedia is not Social Media that hosts your CV. Please refrain from using all capital letters, it is considered shouting and also hard to read. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: FYI, for future information in case you fall on stuff like this again, the above is block evading (see Jimfbleak's talk page). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:01, 15 April 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:AA3C:7D29:6B4A:65C5:6D6E


If this is not sufficient then how is Sartek still on Wikipedia? Delete that too. Both artists performed together. 2405:201:6:AA3C:7D29:6B4A:65C5:6D6E (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It may be that the other article merits deletion, but it won't be deleted just because this one was. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:06, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Winnergreat


Winnergreat (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Winnergreat You already asked HiltroMilanese for advice and they answered your question on their talk page extensive and exhaustive. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draft : Anuj Arora

Why my article is tagged by anyone for deletion i have provided necessary citation whichever is asked

09:23:37, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Manishmewara


Manishmewara (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manishmewara You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy as well. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:27, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Kookieskat11


Which specific Citations Should I remove in order to make this article more reliable? I have already removed GOOGLE searches. Also How can I edit this article to make it less "Promotional" Thank you! Kookieskat11 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kookieskat11 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability upon this company. If you are associated with the company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources in your draft include, Google searches, Instagram, Spotify, Applemusic, Wikidata, Blogs, Soundcloud, Twitter, Pinterest, Genius .com, Horoscope dates and Podcasts.apple.Theroadislong (talk) 10:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:03, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Bentheshrimp


Bentheshrimp (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bentheshrimp You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry im a noob! A submission I made today was rejected and I was hoping you could advise if the changes I have made will make it suitable. It's the first time ive submitted a page and appreciate any help you could give.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentheshrimp (talk • contribs)

@Bentheshrimp: No, unfortunally not. The notability guideline can be found at WP:NCORP. Right now you have two sources in your draft, the company's about page (not independent) and a guardian article (IMO a passsing mention + a quote of the company CEO). @CommanderWaterford: FYI. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:30, 15 April 2021 review of draft by Scuddy07


Scuddy07 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Good day![reply]

I created something to add to Wikipedia and it was declined. The reason given was that there was not any reliable references. However, I did include the actual reference from a website. I am confused on why the reference I used was not good.

@Scuddy07: Reliable references are news and books. We also do not consider sports database references reliable. Noah 💬 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Scuddy07. A minor problem is that you cite the shallow link http://nhltradetracker.com/, whereas the information is deeper on the website, at http://nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_season/1927-28/1 and http://nhltradetracker.com/user/trade_list_by_season/1927-28/2. The more serious problem is that there's no indication that nhltradetracker.com is a reliable source. Who is the author? Who is the publisher? What sort of editorial process do they have? Do they cite their sources? Do they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Anyone can create a website. That doesn't mean that what they put on it is accurate. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point Noah 💬. The good news is that I have also a book called Total NHL that supports my creation. The version I have is the 2003 book. I'm not sure what format is needed to enter this as my reliable sources. What I mean is other than the total, what else is needed? Thanks!

-noah- fix proken ping. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Scuddy07: I recommend using template {{cite book}}, its fields help you ensure you've included everything that's important. Replacing the contents of the draft's "References" section with the code: * {{cite book |editor-last1=Diamond |editor-first1=Dan |title=Total NHL |date=2003 |publisher=Triumph Books |location=Chicago |pages=start–end |isbn=978-1-57243-604-6}} will produce the text:
  • Diamond, Dan, ed. (2003). Total NHL. Chicago: Triumph Books. pp. start–end. ISBN 978-1-57243-604-6.
Simply replace the start and end page numbers with whatever pages you actually use. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:39, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Palisades1

Hi Ive had two pages accepted but it took over 6 months to be reviewed and accepted. Im told that Im eligible to get a quicker review by using "create articles yourself" vs " Articles for creation". If that is so how do I submit my new page to "Articles for creation" Thanks very much. Palisades1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC) Palisades1 (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

I dont have the article ready for submission but Id appreciate some info on how I can get a quicker review. I just dont know how to submit it via "create articles yourself".

Thanks, Palisades1 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades1 Reviews are done by volunteers who do what they can, when they can, in no particular order. There is no way to speed the process up. I would strongly advise you against placing the draft in the encyclopedia yourself unless you are 100% confident that it would survive a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Palisades1. The Articles for creation (Afc) process is an optional one, and you may bypass it. That doesn't mean a quicker review exactly, it means no review by Afc participants. Whether new articles have gone through Afc or not, they are subject to the New pages patrol (NPP) process, which is another type of review. (Although it's also possible to bypass NPP by gaining the autopatrolled right, that isn't something you'll be able to do soon.)
If you have a draft in draft space or user space (such as your sandbox), you can move that page to article space without submitting it to Afc. Starting a page as a draft gives you the freedom to polish it in relative peace, but you can also write directly in article space. See Help:Your first article. At the bottom of "The basics" section, underneath the big blue "Article Wizard" button, is a text box where you can type an article name, then click the "Create page" button to the right. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:49, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Ajay Gupta 0601

Name: Ajay Gupta DOB: 1990 Nationality: Indian Occupation: IT Recruitment Specialist Ajay Gupta 0601 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Gupta 0601 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. This is not social media. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:32, 15 April 2021 review of submission by Apersonthing3000

I'm new to this article creation thing and I don't know how to do it, also I'm doing this on my Chromebook and it has blocksi on it so I can't really get good resources. Apersonthing3000 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:06, 15 April 2021 review of draft by Benkof


the artists is award winning, headline shows at 02 arena, BBC and other radio stations in UK and ghana have had him for interviews. you only need to search his name to see he is qualifies for a wiki page Benkof (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benkof If this is the case it will be easy for you to insert independent, reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources to prove your assumptions, currently your draft is full of promotional web links from primary or self-published sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:25, 15 April 2021 review of draft by S Tallim


I revised the draft as recommended. All previously uploaded photos were deleted. I now wish to upload photos for which I have obtained permission per copyright requirements of Wikipedia. Please advise how to go about it.

S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S Tallim (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@S Tallim: Permissions for free files go to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, though I am not so sure if they accept forwarded emails. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue is likely resolved as the copyright holder resubmitted the permission via the relevant e-mail account. S Tallim S Tallim (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

03:25:36, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Sammy.Muhammed

Why has it been rejected? Sammy.Muhammed (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC) This person is well accomplished and known in Nigeria people in his country deserve to know about him Sammy.Muhammed (talk) 04:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy.Muhammed:, we need to see that others have written about the subject in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is about recording what is already notable, not to promote or make notable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also recommend reading WP:AUTOBIO and WP:YFA to help understand what is required to have an article accepted. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:42, 16 April 2021 review of submission by TarunNagar123


TarunNagar123 (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TarunNagar123 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you work for or represent Deb Technosys, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:32, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Sammy.Muhammed

I edited my page to your standers can it be posted now? Sammy.Muhammed (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy.Muhammed it has not been edited to our standards, you still do not have any properly cited information and the subject is not notable enough for Wikipedia. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I would recommend you edit elsewhere on Wikipedia to get a feel for the policies and writing styles here before you attempt to make another article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:17, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Kookieskat11

Hi! I was wondering if there was any way this article might possibly be considered again in future, once it complies with wikipedia rules? I'd appreciate some advice on this, too Thank you in advance! :) Kookieskat11 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kookieskat11: it can certainly considered at some point in future. Until then, there is no point in trying to pursuade this further. If I am allowed to give you a recommendation, when its too soon now, another attempt isn't worth the candle until a few months, perhaps a year or two, maybe more, has passed. At that time, the draft (if its used as a base) probbably will need to be rewritten almost completely, at least from a reference standpoint. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:09, 16 April 2021 review of draft by Thefrankie88


There is already a Wikipedia for her in a different language https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Haley Thefrankie88 (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thefrankie88: The existence or absence of an article about sth./smbd. cannot be cited as an argument for the existence on the English Wikipedia, because each language is a seperate Project with (somtimes quite) seperate rules. See WP:OSE for more info. Goolge Searches are not reliable sources, because they are highely dynamic (Something which was listed on a Google search rigth now may already be gone in an hour). IMDB is not a reliable source because it is user-generated. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:36, 16 April 2021 review of draft by LordPeterII


Greetings,

I have submitted this Draft back in January, and am well aware that it might still take some time to get accepted/denied. However, I am sort of a WikiOgre and only occasionally have time to edit - right now being one of these times. Thus I am asking whether it would be possible to get some feedback on the article's state?

I'm especially interested in feedback since this is a tricky one, my first article about a company. Not an AfC volunteer's favourite category of articles I suppose, but in need for moderation to avoid promotion. Thus I had intentionally chosen AfC over bothering NPP.

Also, this article was requested by one of the company's representatives, but they respected all our rules and did not try to cheat their way to an article (I did all the writing, and I have no CoI). Thus I would find it nice to honour their honesty by showing them that their article has made some progress at least. Cheers! --LordPeterII (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:04, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Here I am using this website


I got the information from a reliable source which is Emporis

Here I am using this website (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Here I am using this website You had 3 possibilities to provide more than just one source like it was requested by the reviewers. Your draft was now finally rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:40:40, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Andyseanb1


Andyseanb1 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andyseanb1 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:15, 16 April 2021 review of draft by JuwelNotts12


I have this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:DNA_Family_Secrets and I astill dont understand why it keeps getting rejected. The response from one of the helpers says'no independent sources, so no evidence of notability' but there are a number of links at the bottom of the page from independent sources. Sorry am I missing something? I was just trying to add an article and be helpful.

JuwelNotts12 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JuwelNotts12 I honestly do not understand why you are telling us that your draft is getting rejected - it has been rejected once - 16 days ago - and is currently awaiting a new review. Please be patient, there are more than 5,000 articles currently waiting for being reviewed. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CommanderWaterford: Declined, not rejected - Declines are "Work on this some more and try again", rejects are "Stop wasting yours and our time on this." —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Of course it was just a typo/mistake. A rejected draft can also not be in the Review Queue. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:23, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Dangelvoice


Thank you for your advice. I have re-written an article based on Deelee Dube and would like to know if the subject's official website can be added as an external link within the article? I would also be grateful if you could possibly review the article.

Please advise, many thanks.

I have been attempting to submit an article based on Deelee Dube, and unfortunately, it looks as though it has been declined or deleted by Justlettersandnumbers on 16 April 2021. I have also observed copyright notability issues. I would like to rewrite the article and resubmit it to be published. Would it be at all possible to do this?

Please advise, many thanks.

Dangelvoice (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dangelvoice. If you believe you can rewrite the page so that it doesn't infringe copyright, see the "Can you help resolve this issue?" section on the draft, and follow the instructions in the third point of that section. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:26, 16 April 2021 review of submission by SKPatel7991


I added the approval for disclosure for compensation. Please review. Thank you. SKPatel7991 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

SKPatel7991 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Repeatedly submitting a draft for review without making a novel attempt to address the issues that led to it being declined is generally grounds for deletion, and as mentioned none of your sources are acceptable (CNN Money is basically a prose interview and all the rest are either native advertising or sources we would never consider to be third-party reliable sources to begin with). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:06, 16 April 2021 review of submission by Theodorat6


Hi, guys, would you be so kind to help me create this page properly cos, this person Branko Babic is very famous in our country, everyone knows about him, he is organizing all the time charity, donations, etc for our country and there must be the way to create this page on the way how wiki aks for. This is my first time writing this type of article and I'm apologizing for my mistakes. Thank you so much in advance

Theodorat6 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fame is not notability, and unless/until you address the concerns that got it deleted you're not going to have any sort of luck. Also, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim made that could potentially be challenged by anyone for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, if no such source(s) can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content on Wikipedia and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:25:05, 16 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Theodorat6


  Hi guys, would you be so kind to help me create this article because this person is extremely famous in Serbia and there is non-person who doesn't know about Branko, also he is organizing all the time charity, donations and doing as much as he can for Serbia and would be a shame to not exist in Wikipedia, also this is my first time writing articles like this one in Wikipedia and would be much appreciated if you can help me about it. Thank you in advice.


Theodorat6 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theodorat6 - Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theodorat6 It's great that this person does good work, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good works. I would suggest social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:48:04, 16 April 2021 review of submission by OfficialMarkets

I'm just curious as to why my article wasn't accepted? I didn't understand the message that was sent, could you break it down for me as to why it was declined?

OfficialMarkets (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a start this paid for draft is stuffed with ridiculous name dropping promotional puffery. Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, content needs to be written in a neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:48, 16 April 2021 review of submission by 2603:8000:C244:2300:8460:8723:3BDE:338F

I'm writing on behalf of my client, CarZing. CarZing’s mission is to make auto financing quick and easy while providing a modern, hassle free way of shopping for cars. The article was submitted back in December 2020, and a few people have made edits recently, but none have yet approved or rejected the draft. Google Search is currently showing outdated company info until this article can help update the SEO, which is causing customers to get confused. My client and I would greatly appreciate if someone could assist in reviewing the article draft. Thank you so much for your help.


2603:8000:C244:2300:8460:8723:3BDE:338F (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results, in aiding SEO efforts, or in aiding potential customers. If you are being paid for the expressed purpose of creating an article, I'd suggest you return the money. Please review WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Say, do you suppose there's a chance the company may be notable, regardless of this submission's blatant WP:PAID agenda? There are reference to sources that at least have the aesthetic of business news outlets, but I'm having a hard time parsing if they're truly secondary sources and not repackaged press releases/blurbs. The fact that some of the links redirect to the Yahoo news main page doesn't help... BlackholeWA (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

08:00:47, 17 April 2021 review of submission by KULDEEP GAUBA1

i am writing an article about myself to be published on wikipedia. Again and again it is getting rejected by wikipedia. why? Kindly help me out with this. KULDEEP GAUBA1 (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KULDEEP GAUBA1: Wikipedia is not social media. Please be aware that a Wikipedia article might not nessesarely be desireable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:04:09, 17 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Afí-afeti


Hello, Help desk team, I'm having an issue with my draft. I have edited to meet WP:NPOV as a sub. According to the last reviewer, the articles meets notability but written as an advert he says. I have edited the article and I would need assistance from the house to look into the article before I resubmit the AFC for review.

Afí-afeti (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:25:33, 17 April 2021 review of draft by Lovetogether


my article is not publish till now due to reliable source . anyone can help me ?


Lovetogether (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:08, 17 April 2021 review of submission by Bh00lctathride

There is no yellow text that indicates whether this page is waiting for review. Please view and publish. Bh00lctathride (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bh00lctathride Your draft lacked the information needed to formally submit it for review; I have added this information so you can do so. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:49, 17 April 2021 review of draft by SahBu


I created and published an article on Feb. 9th, 2021, which was declined right after its publication on the same day. I then modified the article according to what the reviewer had requested on March 4th, 2021. Nothing has happened since then and I wanted to inquire into whether there is another problem or why the article is not going online. Thank you very much. Kind regards

SahBu (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SahBu You have not resubmitted it for review yet. You need to click "Resubmit". 331dot (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:05, 17 April 2021 review of draft by Nicolaslemonnier75


Hi there, I have been working on submitting some change on a draft article that was refused months ago (not submitted by me at that time). The link to the draft article is the following : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Steve_Pascolo

I submitted the revision (with many changes compared to former submissions), but nothing is happening, and it seems that at least one of the two reviewers that refused the first publication is definitely blocked.

Could you make sure that the article could be reviewed by someone? Of course, I am not deeply experienced in Wikipedia, so I might have some corrections to bring upon request, let me know in that case.

Many thanks in advance, Best, Nicolaslemonnier75 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Nicolas[reply]


Nicolaslemonnier75 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolaslemonnier75 You have submitted the draft and it is pending. As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,590 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:05, 17 April 2021 review of draft by BadSoden1


Hello, my submissionbgelent from @Gpkp with this reason "this submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources".

The same article in German, with the same sources was accepted by Wikipedia (GER) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_in_der_Parkstrasse_28.

As proofs serve liste: 1 - State Office for Monument Preservation Hesse, 2 - List of cultural monuments in Bad Soden am Taunus.

And book Christiane Schalles, "Chewing Gum and Spa Concerts" and artickl in German Digital Library.

Of course all references are in German!

What else can I do to publish artickl?


BadSoden1 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BadSoden1The German language and the English Language Wikipedias have different inclusion criteria. Even so I think it is likely, but not certain, to pass our notability criteria. Wikipedia:NBUILDING will tell you for certain. It would be worth discussing this with @Gpkp FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Faddle. It is about a historic building in Germany, which is a listed building. Of course all sources are in German but they are fully linked as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BadSoden1 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources being in German is not an issue. We accept citations to sources not in English. The issue is that de.wp and en.wp have different standards for inclusion, and it's not certain (though it is likely) that the article meets en.wp's standards, as Timtrent says above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BadSoden1:; The drafts must be reliably sourced (with multiple citations). You can see the AfC guidelines here. There are many articles such as Miscellaneous centre, The New Democrats, Phạm Minh Chính which are created directly with a translation tag, but as far as the AfC review is concerned, it must be as per the guidelines. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:34, 17 April 2021 review of submission by Dangelvoice


Thank you for your advice. I have re-written an article based on Deelee Dube and would like to know if the subject's official website can be added as an external link within the article? I would also be grateful if you could possibly review the article.

Please advise, many thanks.

Dangelvoice (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dangelvoice I've left a comment on Draft:Deelee Dube/Temp which ought to help you. Official web sites may be added as external links FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:29, 17 April 2021 review of submission by Dangelvoice


Thank you for your advice and comments. Some adjustments have been made, and I would be grateful if you could review the article based on Deelee Dube for submission.

Please advise, many thanks.

Dangelvoice (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

Request on 04:15:02, 18 April 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by JASWANT SINGH 07


In my opinion my article is under wikipedia's notability.My company's is well known in Mumbai for its valuable features and contributions during covid period. So i request authors to please publish this article so as many people would know about this company by reading on wikipedia's. I believe encyclopedia is for every topic and that's why i believe you will take action on my concern

JASWANT SINGH 07 (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion my article was notable in every aspect of wikipedia's. Lockfisher company is well reputed firm which is very popular in Mumbai for its contribution and work during the period of covid so we find a need to publish an article on wikipedia's so that more and more people would able to know about Lockfisher. I believe encyclopedia provide knowledge about every single good or bad thing so i request you take proper action against my concern.

JASWANT SINGH 07 (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


In my opinion my article was notable in every aspect of wikipedia's. Lockfisher company is well reputed firm which is very popular in Mumbai for its contribution and work during the period of covid so we find a need to publish an article on wikipedia's so that more and more people would able to know about Lockfisher. I believe encyclopedia provide knowledge about every single good or bad thing so i request you take proper action against my concern JASWANT SINGH 07 (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged your duplicate requests. To answer your question, your draft contains zero reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a business directory. Also see WP:COI. --Kinu t/c 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:27, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Nikhil5008

06:14:27, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Nikhil5008


Nikhil5008 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connexion to the company? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 12:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:50, 18 April 2021 review of draft by Asingleton-green


I am working on an article about a long-running nightclub in New York City. Two videos (by different groups) were filmed at the club and offer an historic view of the unique interior. Both videos received wide airplay on channels like MTV. Is it appropriate to link those videos to the article? Or should they be placed in a “References” section? What is the proper way to do that? Thanks in advance.

Asingleton-green (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asingleton-green Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Film, television, or video recordings for information on citing a video. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asingleton-green fix broken ping Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:05:29, 18 April 2021 review of draft by Triojan LLP


I want to publish an article about a conglomerate in Wiki, but it has been rejected, saying that it is sounding like an advertisement. I want to understand how I can make it sound more factual.

Triojan LLP (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Triojan LLP I only had to read the opening to see that the draft is an advertisement. Any and all language that is like "The company aims to provide high-quality products and services to its customers" needs to be removed. The draft should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Press releases, announcements of routine business activities, the company website, brief mentions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please see Your first article
Please see your user talk page for important information regarding your username. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:25, 18 April 2021 review of draft by Inspiress


I have gathered evidence from all independent sources and many reliable sources and have written the article from a neutral point of view, I do not understand why my article is tagged as "read more like an advertisement"?? I am not advertising anything in the article, and I am totally independent from this person I am writing about. I would like more detailed response than simply "it reads like an advertisement", such as where I should reword, what I should add more, etc. This is a polite ask for help based on the review. I would appreciate it if any experienced editor can help me point out what I should change.

  • Note: I have gathered as much information about the person I am writing on as possible. As far as providing further detail on any topic, I am unable to gather more details about her.

Inspiress (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:55, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Vajradiamond


Vajradiamond (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This is a translation of the Mandarin article of 谷秀衡

Hi Vajradiamond. Are you trying to say that you think Draft:Thomas H. Ku should be accepted for publication because the topic exists at zh:谷秀衡? Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to it own set of rules, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may be suitable for the Mandarin Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia, or vice versa. Also the existence of an article somewhere does not mean it should exist there, it may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet.
The acceptability of the draft depends on the sources it cites. At present it cites no sources, so is completely unacceptable. When you translated the Mandarin article, you didn't copy the three sources it cites. If you wish to continue working on the topic, you could start by citing those sources in your translation. You also would need to find additional independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of him. Only two of the three sources from the Mandarin article are independent of him, and those two are both about his fatal fall from his balcony, so they don't demonstrate significant coverage over a period of time. If you find several suitable sources, you may ask the reviewer to reconsider the rejection of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand. Thank you for letting me know.

14:57:51, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Vajradiamond


Vajradiamond (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do a translation of an Mandarin article in English?

@Vajradiamond: If you can read and write both languages, you read it from one and write a translated form in the other. We don't want to see machine translations as a machine does not always capture context and may missed key points in the translation. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcmatter OK I understand, thank you for your advice Mcmatter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajradiamond (talk • contribs) 15:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Machine translation also generally returns incomprehensible word salad if used for South and East Asian languages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:44, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Preethi srinivasa


Hello Wiki,

My article is being rejected on regular basis,I would like to get some advice in this regard.

I have Good fan following who are interested to know about me and the works i have been involved, there are multiple interview telecasted about me on different platforms, so i felt wiki is best place where people can find complete details about me, in this regard i am adding my details here, would like to know what needs to change in my article to make this accepted.

Regards Preethi

Preethi srinivasa (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Preethi srinivasa: You shouldn't be writing about yourself, full stop. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or, if no such source(s) can be found, removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing any sort of biographical content on Wikipedia and is not negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:08, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Zindacraze


Zindacraze (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i have used my own data and photographs

This draft has been deleted for being overly promotional. All articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:37, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Foodu10


Foodu10 (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft reads like an advertisement. To be included in Wikipedia, all articles must be written from a neutral point of view. If you have a conflict of interest, you are obligated to disclose it. Thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:30, 18 April 2021 review of draft by Lucyschneider


Requesting help to get my first page submission up to guideline standards. I have made multiple changes as requested to comply already, but it is still not enough. Any further suggestions would be much appreciated.


Lucyschneider (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you proffer are significant coverage, and two of your sources are defunct. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:12, 18 April 2021 review of submission by 2401:4900:5249:9A16:F893:9FBC:A543:D327


2401:4900:5249:9A16:F893:9FBC:A543:D327 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


20:17:35, 18 April 2021 review of draft by Good194


I don't know how to submit this material as edits to the existing page, using the easier formatting system that I used for this draft. I am working on addressing the other points you make. Thank you so much for your assistance. Good194 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:07, 18 April 2021 review of submission by Joolspayne

Hi I have realised the addition of the Last Will and Testament is inappropriate, but cannot find out how to remove it.

Joolspayne (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


21:37:25, 18 April 2021 review of draft by Delbarital


Sorry for bringing this up again but I feel like I'm stuck in a weird position. I checked the notability page and read the substantial coverage examples, yet they are irrelevant:

Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement:
A news article discussing a prolonged controversy regarding a corporate merger, - this is irrelevant because although Next acquired two companies, there was no controversy.
A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization, - this is irrelevant because the ongoing media coverage of insurance company is not something that happens, even for very large an well established insurance companies.
A documentary film exploring environmental impact of the corporation's facilities or products, - this is irrelevant because there is no environmental impact of next as an insurance startup
An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization, - this is irrelevant because we are talking about a startup
A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product, - this is irrelevant because there are no potential safety issues when it comes to insurance
An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies). - this is irrelevant for this type of service

Yet the company is one of the largest private companies in the world based on its valuation. The vast majority of startups in the list of "unicorns" have articles, while most have similar or less coverage compared to Next. For example: Ginkgo Bioworks, Stripe_(company), Carta (software company), Afiniti.
Furthermore, similar companies in the same space, such as Hippo (company), Root, Inc., Lemonade, Inc., all don't have in-depth references that follow the notability guidelines (as far as I understand).

I understand the guidelines, but it seems most articles about startups don't follow them, so I don't understand what am I doing differently that caused the article to be declined?

Delbarital (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Delbarital The issue is that a startup that does not have significant coverage (this list is a list if examples, not a definitive list) is not yet suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is useful here. You are welcome, if you have a policy based reason, to nominate any and every article that does not meet the occlusion criteria for deletion. Over time Wikipedia has become tougher to get an article accepted in, Standards are being raised continually. Borderline articles where one turned a hair in, say, 2010, those would not be accepted today.
All you can do is concentrate on quality of referencing. Wikipedia:Too soon may well apply to your chosen corporation
I have not looked at your draft, nor the other articles. I'm speaking generically FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

02:39:42, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Sharsuni


Sharsuni (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:45:05, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Sharsuni


Coz i thought the you did speedy deletion by mistake coz my page is not violating any copyright guidelines. So i submitted for re review

Sharsuni (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being deleted for copyright, it's being deleted because it's an inappropriate use of userspace. Wikipedia is not social media or a billboard. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:09, 19 April 2021 review of draft by KapowKapow


I have been attempting to learn the ropes of article creation by submitting new pages about fashion labels not yet represented in Wikipedia. This submission was declined due to not being 'adequately supported by reliable resources' and as 'the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia'.

Would it be possible to get some examples of where I am going wrong? I have only used mainstream media outlets as sources and as far as I can tell, the quality of my sources doesn't differ from other fashion-related Wiki pages.

In terms of language, all sentences basically paraphrase the sources, none of which are advertisements. It would be really helpful if you could point out some examples of particular words or phrases that are not suitable for an encyclopedic article; and also examples of sources that are not suitable. Thanks a lot for your help!

KapowKapow (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples of advertising.. "the brand quickly went from selling 200 swimsuits a season to hundreds of thousands", "The line consists of gold and silver plated bracelets, necklaces, rings and earrings, with prices ranging from £16-£60", "Melissa’s customers were requesting beachwear that’s glamorous enough to wear on a night out, so I said let’s do it!" Theroadislong (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:52, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Cksaad

I did review my published page and added more sources for the person I added, interviews done and articles abouth that person. does meet the requirements?

Cksaad (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:39, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal


Paraiso Pal (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paraiso Pal You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:00:15, 19 April 2021 review of draft by 78.16.145.51


Hi there, I need help on the types of citations to prove education. Example: In 2008, Beggs completed the Leadership 4 Growth Programme at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in California. In 2010 he completed a Diploma in Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law from the Law Society of Ireland.[citation needed]

To my knowledge, a degree/ certificate is not adequate so I would be grateful to get some help on the kind of citations needed.

Thanks

78.16.145.51 (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is cite the source that you got the information from, where did you get it from? Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:44, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Steven Anderson


The links and references that I included in the article was all that I could find. I'm hoping I don't have to add anymore references.

Steven Anderson (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Anderson The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:45:26, 19 April 2021 review of draft by Dalia Soliman CoE


The article I wrote was reviewed and declined. The reviewer told me to remove external links, what I did is my article now ready for a positive review? Thanks a lot for your help!

Dalia Soliman CoE (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalia Soliman CoE Please be patient, your draft had been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review - currently are more than 5,000 drafts waiting for a review, it can take up to several months. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:00:54, 19 April 2021 review of submission by MRCKH


MRCKH (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:O You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:55:14, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal


My article is self-sufficient at the moment I would like it to be reviewed. Thanks.-->}}


Paraiso Pal (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paraiso Pal As already stated, your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on the subject. If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:47, 19 April 2021 review of submission by 111.119.239.74


111.119.239.74 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


14:50:39, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Alhashish


I would like to create an English version of this Japanese article(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/舐達麻). However my draft has been rejected as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Actually this rap group is arguably one of the most famous rap groups in Japan at the moment. Some of its official music videos gained more than ten million views. I think this article is quite noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Alhashish (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article consists of links to YouTube videos and a link to the jawiki article about the topic. As it stands, this is not a properly referenced article and does not establish notability whatsoever. --Kinu t/c 15:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:08, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Earth and the moon


Earth and the moon (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft contains no sourced information about why this topic is notable. --Kinu t/c 15:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:42, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal


Paraiso Pal (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paraiso Pal uploading copyright files to Commons and using copyright text on Wikipedia are both serious errors FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


15:41:56, 19 April 2021 review of draft by 24.101.83.131


Hello! Sorry for the copy and pasted message below, but I have tried reaching out to reviewers about this question and am a little tired of typing it :(.


Question ---> Hello! Thank you for reading this and sorry for taking up your time. I have been working on an article with my partner for quite a while, but it has been denied multiple times. I believe you were one of the first reviewers on this article and I was hoping I could get some insight into how I can get this published.

First here is the article in question.

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naoki_Terada

My first question is why has this article not been approved when the Japanese version has and is basically the same thing just translated?

Japanese article ---> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%BA%E7%94%B0%E5%B0%9A%E6%A8%B9

Also, I have been speaking with another reviewer, but I could not get a good answer from them regarding this. The other reviewer kept mentioning sources, but my partner found other similar articles that have much less sources than our article.

Article 1 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arata_Isozaki

Article 2 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazutoshi_Sat%C5%8D

Any insight or help you could provide would be great since my partner is really eager to have this published and we have been working on it for a very long time.

Thank you!


24.101.83.131 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chatsha57. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own set of rules, set by the community of editors who contribute there, so an article may be suitable for the Japanese Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality ones. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So it is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:44, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Paraiso Pal


Paraiso Pal (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the answer to your question above. Repeatedly posting the same (non-)question here won't change the fact that the draft was rejected. --Kinu t/c 15:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:43, 19 April 2021 review of draft by Acolytetchy


Hello,

I recently submitted the draft to the page Oded Kafri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oded_Kafri) for review, and it got declined with 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'd like to know more details about what I could change/add to the text to make this page possible to be submitted. Oded is currently a public person in Germany as an artist. Most of the information I could get were articles where his concerts / acts were taking place, some biography texts from interviews and relevant YouTube videos (over millions of views). I tried to take a good read at the requirements from Wikipedia, but it's been not so easy to understand how to do things correctly. It's my first time submitting an article and it's been a little bit overwhelming, but I wanted to do this for him, because as a street/studio performer the page would be of much meaning to him and to his career.

If there's a way of knowing more exactly what is sounding too "advertising" on the writing style, or what else is stopping the page from being accepted, that would be nice. Thanks, Acolytetchy (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acolytetchy (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of advertising "Oded has built a strong presence on YouTube mainly from videos made by spectators in the streets of London and Hamburg, where he used to play frequently." this is totally unsourced and YouTube videos confer zero notability unless they have been reported on in depth and with significant coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:40, 19 April 2021 review of draft by 173.188.130.24


173.188.130.24 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@173.188.130.24: Wikipedia does not allow advertising. See WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK for more info. And please never copy texts from outside onto Wikipedia. Doing so is almost always a copyright violation. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:15:56, 19 April 2021 review of draft by Maaj01


After my first draft of this article had been declined I added multiple secondary, international sources. However, the article has again been declined, which I do understand, as a Youtuber might not be in the primary scope of Wikipedia. The subject is unfortunately not very well covered by sources such as newspapers, thus making it a challenge to for me to confirm the article.

However, I do find the subject notable, as the reach is severe and comparable to other Youtubers who have been covered in a Wikipedia article. What can I do to improve the article and my editing- and researching skills? Thank you in advance!

Maaj01 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maaj01 all you can do is to look for references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:47, 19 April 2021 review of submission by Pilotmichael


Pilotmichael (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Help getting article approved. Why is the article being rejected in a matter of seconds? I made many changes from all the advise given, including changes from the person who rapidly rejected the article. Please help. I have met the Wikipedia criteria and have made all the changes suggested by everyone involved. Pilotmichael (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1018793117"