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 Prizwan5 (talk | contribs) at 16:39, 26 May 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
June 2025
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


May 20

01:01:23, 20 May 2021 review of submission by Seantseng918

Hello, the reason my page was moved to draftspace was because it seemed too promotional and the tone was off. What do you suggest or advise to make this more neutral?

Note: I have deleted some paragraphs because the Chinese Wikipedia page, which I based this from, has no sources/reference, and other search results are copied from that page or have little information about what I'm trying to write.

Thanks Seantseng918 (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:08:43, 20 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Virjournal

The draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Divya_Tusnial has received comments on Notability under Biographies of Living Persons. There's a very similar article already published on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Chow) which uses similar kinds of references. Could the editors help in understanding this issue. Is the referencing wrongly used or does it not qualify at all? Thank you.

Virjournal (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Virjournal Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that those other articles are inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. The other article you cite has the same problems as your draft, so I've marked it for attention.
Your draft reads as resume, just telling about the person and what they do. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:57:08, 20 May 2021 review of draft by Ngangaesther


Ngangaesther (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 

kindly l want  to create another article in sandbox but am unable to move above article from sand box Ngangaesther (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
regard esther[reply]
Ngangaesther The draft you linked to isn't in your sandbox; you may use Articles for Creation to create a new draft with a different title. You may also create multiple sandboxes, such as User:Ngangaesther/sandbox 2. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:57, 20 May 2021 review of submission by Mr.VaiBH

Let's not try to sugar things and get straight.

Wikipedia guidelines are well documented, but junk. They are good but not human friendly.

I just wanted to make a Wikipedia page for "Everybodywiki", because I think they deserve it. It's notable, popular and widely used. It's not included in any illegal issues and I think that's enough to get an approved Wikipedia article.

I'm not asking to approve Everybodywiki. I am here to ask for help to please explain me the guidelines in bit shorter, and human friendly. Please provide me some link (if any) where I can find all guidelines in brief. I really appreciate the hard work behind Wikipedia, as we know the domain is .org not .com

Thank You


Mr.VaiBH (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.VaiBH Your draft just tells about the existence of EverybodyWiki. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a website, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website. If no independent reliable sources give that website significant coverage, it would not merit an article at this time regardless of how popular it is. Please see Your First Article. If you haven't, you may also want to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:52:01, 20 May 2021 review of submission by Arav tt10

Arav tt10 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place to post resumes or just tell about someone. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:28, 20 May 2021 review of submission by Barallaxman

Barallaxman (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barallaxman You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:58, 20 May 2021 review of draft by Mfminteractive


Mfminteractive (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mfminteractive You don't ask a question. If you represent the subject, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required disclosures. You should also change your username to be more individualistic, please go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest to do so. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:19:10, 20 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Hondo2160

Hello, I have recently received word that my submission for Smooth-On, Inc. was denied again. I have been editing and working with editors for over 1 year, and am confused as to why some other submissions which provide less content than mine. For example, Chem-Dry, OrangeSoda and Andy's Frozen Custard. Can someone assist with what is directly missing from my submission? Thank you for any help you can provide.

Hondo2160 (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hondo2160 I've fixed your links to proper internal links, the whole web address is not necessary. Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that those other articles are inappropriate. It is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. For example, the ChemDry article is tagged as problematic.
Your draft just tells about the company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Press releases, announcements of routine business activities(like acquiring a competitor or commencing operations), staff interviews, and brief mentions do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:48, 20 May 2021 review of submission by Algocu

Decision to reject this article appears to be arbitrary, and is possibly capricious and biased. Appeal is requested.

algocu (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Algocu The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean that it would not be considered again. Please review the advice given by the reviewer before further edits or resubmission. Please read Your First Article. Your draft must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:47, 20 May 2021 review of draft by Seantseng918

Ignore my other post, I didn't realize that it was review of submission instead of review of draft.

Hello, the reason my page was moved to draftspace was because it seemed too promotional and the tone was off. What do you suggest or advise to make this more neutral?

Note: I have deleted some paragraphs because the Chinese Wikipedia page, which I based this from, has no sources/reference, and other search results are copied from that page or have little information about what I'm trying to write.

Thanks Seantseng918 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:22, 20 May 2021 review of submission by Shitansh

Similar self-publishing houses such as Notion Press has its own wikipedia pages. This is a registered company in India and growing fast. It is ranked among the top 10 self-publishing companies in India. A search on google reveals its importance. It is a worthy inclusion in wikipedia. So, I request you to kindly consider my submission again. shitansh sinha 19:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

21:28:51, 20 May 2021 review of draft by GrahamEmel


Hello, I am reaching out to ask about a recent page I am trying to edit. I have been a volunteer worker with an organization, Sahiyo, for the past semester. They had asked me to update their Wikipedia page, because it was severely limited. I had drafted an at-length page trying to capture aspects about their page, such as their mission, research conducted, and so on. I had submitted a revision to the Wikipedia page, which was taken down. I then submitted a draft to the sandbox editors, who told to, rather than create a whole new 'Sahiyo' page, edit it instead. I was wondering if I could receive help on how to publish the changes to the organization's Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated!

Thank you!

GrahamEmel (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamEmel Please review conflict of interest for information on a formal disclosure you should make. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, not what it wants to say about itself. Much of what you attempted to add was primary sources, which are only acceptable in limited circumstances. As you have a conflict of interest, you should not directly edit about your organization, but you may make formal edit requests on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. Note that it is not the organization's "Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about your organization. The organization has no special rights to it, see WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:17, 20 May 2021 review of draft by Unexpectedlydian

I would like to delete this draft and not submit for a review via AFC. Since beginning the draft, I have discovered that the subject of this article does not want a WikiPedia page and I would like to delete my draft out of respect. Please let me know if it is possible to do this, and what steps I can take. Unexpectedlydian (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Unexpectedlydian. If you add the code {{db-g7}} to the top of the draft, it will be speedily deleted, although speedy is a relative term. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 21

Request on 05:17:56, 21 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jyotsanaj03

Hello, I am trying to publish this article draft: Sanjeev Bhanot for a few days now. The article has all the relevant information and references. The language of the article is written by me and it does not have any advertisement in it. It has been written with a very neutral point of view. Kindly look into it. And allow to publish the article. Thank You!

Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's very promotional in nature. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:37, 21 May 2021 review of submission by FpsJimbo

Requesting a review of page for submission. Peter now qualifies as an athlete page on wikipedia due to the number of fights he has had with Bellator.

FpsJimbo (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:25, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Yourepartofit

I was working on this page consistently to try to get it approved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mint_400_Records It was still being worked on and someone who is not me submitted it. Then an admin put a big stop sign on the page so it can no longer be submitted. How is this allowed? I get that the article still needs work to be published but the same admin also is now going to delete the accompanying discography page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_400_Records_discography) because the company page does not exist for it. How can the company page ever exist if nobody can work on it and submit to get it approved? Is there a limit to how many times you can submit for review? Can other editors of that page be warned of that?

Yourepartofit (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a fixed upper number of requests, but reviewers tend to get bored if they need to decline a Draft for the 6th time for the same reason, which results in causing an end. At this point I am afraid that unless you can pull your WP:THREE, investing more time in this is probbably a time waste. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:05, 21 May 2021 review of submission by 216.174.68.20

216.174.68.20 (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:08, 21 May 2021 review of draft by Bwoodcock


Hi. I maintain directories of Internet critical infrastructure, and we try to help keep Wikipedia up-to-date in the areas we work in. There's an article ("Public recursive name server") which lists the publicly-available recursive DNS nameservers. One of the most notable ones, Emerald Onion, is no longer listed there, because user Tim@ deleted it citing the lack of a Wikipedia page describing Emerald Onion itself. The Emerald Onion folks tried to remedy this by creating a page describing the organization, and honestly they did quite a good job under the circumstances, but it's been deleted twice by people who cited a lack of notability. This is an abstruse field, the people who work in it don't receive a lot of recognition in the mainstream press, but tens of millions of Internet users depend on this infrastructure, and Emerald Onion is advancing the state-of-the-art in Internet privacy. The fact that they're not a commercial company that spends a lot on self-promotion and PR does not make them less notable.

There are a lot of people who depend on the "Public recursive name server" page as an actual canonical index of the pubic recursive name servers out there. Arbitrary gatekeeping to exclude particularly notable public recursive nameservers is a disservice to the public, and makes Wikipedia inaccurate.

We need to overcome this deadlock, either by allowing the "Emerald Onion" page, or by not deleting major public recursive nameservers from the "Public recursive name server" page arbitrarily because they don't also happen to have a Wikipedia page. Having a Wikipedia page is not what makes something notable. Performing an important function that many people depend upon makes something notable.

Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bwoodcock Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you must make. It is true that requiring independent reliable sources means that some subject areas are underserved with Wikipedia articles, but such a requirement is necessary for verification and neural point of view purposes. If you feel that something needs to be included in the existing article you speak of, please discuss it on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, are you asserting that a conflict of interest exists, or that someone is being paid? If so, please state your assertion and provide whatever support you believe you have for it. And vandalizing my user page is just petty. Bill Woodcock (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bwoodcock You said "I maintain directories of Internet critical infrastructure, and we try to help keep Wikipedia up-to-date in the areas we work in." This makes it sound like you are editing as part of your job. If not, okay. I deleted your userpage per WP:FAKEARTICLE. User pages are meant for Wikipedia editors to tell about themselves as Wikipedia editors, and are not meant to be articles. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, perhaps do the "fire, aim, assess the situation" thing in a different order? Rather than misinterpreting what I say, perhaps look into the situation yourself, and come to a decision based on what you find out. If you look into the situation, and come to the conclusion that I am somehow being paid to edit Wikipedia articles, or that I am somehow conflicted, then by all means, I would be happy to have a conversation about that. But base your action on information, rather than leaping to misassumptions. I don't really need to be lectured about the purpose of Wikipedia pages, and the page you deleted hadn't been edited since before the norms you cite came into effect, in the mid-2000s. If it's really a high priority for you what other people's user pages say on them, perhaps that's what talk pages are for, no? You're welcome to clean up and start again, if you like. Bill Woodcock (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bwoodcock I based my decision on what you said, including your use of "we" which suggests you are part of a business or group, and I assume you don't maintain directories for free. If you wish to clarify or explain, please do so at your convenience. I have restored your userpage on the basis of it being grandfathered as I had based my action on your most recent edit. I apologize. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be that you make it less article-like, but it's not a requirement. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the userpage for deletion again, it looks entirely inappropriate per WP:FAKEARTICLE. Theroadislong (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thank you. You state your assumption that I don't maintain directories for free. That was an incorrect assumption. I am part of many groups, very few of them are businesses, and none of the businesses are in any way related to the field under discussion here. Which, by the way, can we get back to discussion of? Does anyone else have any opinions about the actual subject of the conversation? Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, is there some reason y'all have so much more interest in my user page than I do, and is there some reason you feel so compelled to delete things rather than improve them? If you have a positive contribution to make, you're welcome to do so. If other people really care what's on my user page, I expect I can find some time to improve it myself. Since that appears to be what policy actually indicates. Bill Woodcock (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bwoodcock If a user in good faith believes any page meets one of the speedy deletion criteria, they may nominate it for deletion. I assume that they observed my restoration of the page. I have already spoken to the matter you raise- you should discuss it on the article talk page of the existing article(which you seem to be), and that it is true that some topic areas are underserved due to a lack of independent reliable sources, but that is unavoidable. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:16, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Tamil Astronomical


Tamil Astronomical (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:49, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Chimox1278

Chimox1278 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is entirely promotional and there is zero indication that the person is in any way, shape or form notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:24, 21 May 2021 review of draft by EverydayBlogger


I have 7 additional independent sources that I can add that are interviews. Would that be sufficient to support notability?

EverydayBlogger (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:19:21, 21 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Stoptosmellroses

The reason why I'm requesting assistance is that my article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Guo_Shiyou) has been declined the second time. At my last revision, I removed all the praises for the scholar I was writing about leaving only the comments quoted from reliable sources. I missed one adjective "ambitious endeavor" which I removed promptly today.

My first question is: Do I need to remove all the positive comments from his critics? I was thinking those comments are from well known scholars in China and will add credibility to his work.

My second question is: The scholar I'm writing about publishes in Chinese. His works have not been translated into English yet, but he is one of the major historians in China. All the works he has published has ISBN number. All the comments on his works come from major publications in China and I provided the English title for the books and journals. Would you please tell me how I can improve on the sources? There're quite a few non-English speaking scholars in Wiki and I modeled on their biography.

Thank you so much in advance for help me. This is my first article. I hope to learn from you all.

Hongying Liu from Cupertino, CA

Stoptosmellroses (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:41, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Marco Cortez

Marco Cortez (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys i want my article to be published. But i don't know what is wrong that keeps declining it

@Marco Cortez: no sources? Please review WP:INTREF. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:42, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Zblack Braah

Zblack Braah (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:57, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Zblack Braah

Zblack Braah (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:17, 21 May 2021 review of submission by Veltmann1988

I'm not exactly sure why this was deleted, other than it was not "significant" coverage. I felt I had to "Publish" the article because I had to go run errands and didn't want my draft to be deleted/not saved correctly. Not sure what other options there are.

I'm also unsure as to where the "company logo upload" form is for Wikipedia (or whatever it's called, sorry I don't remember). I looked all over for the form, but couldn't find it.

Veltmann1988 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veltmann1988: "Publish changes" should be understood as "save changes". That button was renamed a year or so ago to remind you that every edit is publicitely visible, if one knows where to look for it (Search Engines like Google don't find drafts). Since company logos are almost always copyrighted, the only option would be to upload a logo under fair use, which isn't allowed in draftspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More like a few years ago. We've been getting complaints and bewilderment about it since at least 2016. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 22

04:04:30, 22 May 2021 review of submission by Anonymous Deer

Can it please be reviewed? Anonymous Deer (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was reviewed and rejected 5 days ago, it is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:01, 22 May 2021 review of draft by Gerard Stamp


Hello, I repeated the headline on a page twice in error (Cave Austin and Co., Ltd. Cave Austin and Co., Ltd.) and Don't know how to correct! Could you advise please.

Gerard Stamp (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gerard Stamp I think you have to have a number of edits under your belt before the function is available? Theroadislong (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

16:58:54, 22 May 2021 review of submission by Flex ab

Flex ab (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex ab. I've left a welcome basket of links on your talk page that you may find useful as you find your way around. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:30, 22 May 2021 review of draft by StarGaze623

I tried to start a page for a YA author I like and followed a similar structure as another Author page. She has published a lot of books but there aren't many sources (news articles, etc) about her (I posted all the ones i could find on the reference list). Anyways, the draft was rejected and im not sure what i can do to improve it.I saw the mention that there arent enough reliable secondary sources that are independent from the subject but I'm not sure what information I would have to provide for that, as I was just hoping to publish a basic page joining all the information of her work.

StarGaze623 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StarGaze623 The draft was declined, not rejected, meaning the reviewer thought it is at least possible for the person to be shown to be notable. However, if there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this author, they would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

01:34:20, 23 May 2021 review of submission by AlexArticleMY

AlexArticleMY (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:39:34, 23 May 2021 review of submission by AlexArticleMY

Isaac Voo is famous in Malaysia... Without the In2It group, Isaac Voo is also very famous not only in Malaysia he is also known in other countries such as Indonesia. I hope wikipedia reviews it, and it should not be rejected because all the links I linked are enough to show Isaac is quite famous in Malaysia. Isaac also has many followers on his social media sites and this also proves isaac is famous.

AlexArticleMY (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IN2IT sources don't help your case, honestly. Soonpi is too sparse. World of Buzz solicits articles and appears to have no editorial oversight. We also don't care about fame; fame is ephemeral while notability is forever. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:55:26, 23 May 2021 review of draft by Ltsqrd

Hello. The draft included here was recently declined. I would like to get some advice on how to improve this draft in order to get it approved for publish. Thanks in advance! Ltsqrd (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ltsqrd (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The various YouTube videos that he has produced/starred in do not help for notability (Connexion to subject). Instagram is never a valid source for notability (No editorial oversight). Note that this article falls under the stricter standards of WP:Biographies of living persons, so these sources will NOT cut it for any claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:53, 23 May 2021 review of submission by MrConnieGenius

I hope to successfully resubmit this article which was twice rejected as follows: 1) The first rejection was due to insufficient references and citations. Hopefully, that has been satisfactorily rectified with additional content. 2) The second rejection was due to self-promotion which I beg you to reconsider if I may explain: This article is about a novel set during the Iran-Iraq War. Long before writing this article, I had added this novel to another WP article, "Iran-Iraq War" under the section "Fictional stories about the War." Unfortunately, since the name of the Novel, "My Blog Is Up For Grabs" does not seem like it could be the name of a serious, literary work, it was perceived to be a spam link and rejected. Later, another WP editor re-reviewed that and stated, "Wait, it may actually be a real novel" and reinstated the link. However, the damage had already been done to the reputation of the novel due to its bizarre title. I completely agree that the name of this novel doesn't look like a normal title, especially for a novel from Iran! I am hoping that if there is a separate WP article on this novel, such misunderstandings will not arise. It is a serious novel describing human rights and the plight of children in Iran and deserves attention. That said, I fully understand and appreciate WP's attention to standards of quality and issues of spam and self-promotion.

MrConnieGenius (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:55, 23 May 2021 review of submission by Sonamsingh143

Sir, i added reference links to the article, but after references you reject that. This is not a good decision at all. I spend hours to write this. Please request you to publish my article. or tell me what i can improve in this as well.

Sonamsingh143 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonamsingh143 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something, Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please take the advice I gave you earlier. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:16, 23 May 2021 review of draft by Señorito Nilo


Hi there, my draft that was declined was actually a translation of a German Wikipedia article, so obviously it met all the German notability (or as they are called there, relevance) criteria. So now I am trying to work out how these differ from the English ones. Maybe 'notability' is really a notch above 'relevance' and nothing can be done on the level of editing; but I am wondering whether 'notability' by English Wikipedia standards refers to the English-speaking world - i.e. is it an exclusion criterion if the sources are in a language other than English? Thanks a lot for further info! Señorito Nilo (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Señorito Nilo (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Señorito Nilo Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with its own editors, policies, and practices. What is acceptable on one language version is not necessarily acceptable on another.
Sources need not be in English- it helps, but it is not required, see this page. In the case of a film director, you need to show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this person meets the English Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:33:09, 23 May 2021 review of submission by 67.224.128.46

67.224.128.46 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. Being copied from Wikizilla (with proper attribution) doesn't make it automatically usable; you still need to provide sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:03, 23 May 2021 review of draft by Honestman7

i would like to get published on this site i was told that i was on there but don't see myself how do i get help with an article thank you Stanley Durbin.

Honestman7 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestman7 I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. This is not social media, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves. While not forbidden, autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. A Wikipedia article is also not necessarily desirable; there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:38:05, 23 May 2021 review of draft by Aqquarela2020


Aqquarela2020 (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedia Rep - I want to ensure the three references I added to the Aqquarela's bio justifies the band existence so we can be published accordingly. I appreciate your guidance in this process. Thank you.

Aqquarela2020 Please see your user talk page for important information about your username and conflict of interest. Your draft is largely unsourced. A Wikipedia article does not just tell of something's existence. It should(in this case) summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

Request on 03:23:46, 24 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jacobcflatter


We are creating a page for Bebcare, which is a well known baby products company making low emissions baby monitors. However, we receive a rejection message and would like to see what we can do to publish the page on Bebcare. Thank you so much!

Jacobcflatter (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobcflatter: Who is "we"? Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:25, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are Bebcare

@Jacobcflatter: Since the draft was rejected, there is nothing that you can do. You do, however, need to review the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on required formal disclosures you must make(declaring paid editing is a Terms of Use requirement). 331dot (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:23:15, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Columbidae5

His co actors like Nissar Khan , Ujjwal Chopra have wikipedia pages. Columbidae5 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Columbidae5: Wikipedia is not inherited. And even when the other articles should in fact not exist, the existence of other inappropiate articles is not an argument to create another one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:29, 24 May 2021 review of submission by 23surajbohra

23surajbohra (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@23surajbohra You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:19:49, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Al nomanuix

Al nomanuix (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al nomanuix You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:34, 24 May 2021 review of draft by 41.35.255.93

Hi, I'd like to know why my article got declined and if there's anything need to be improved?

41.35.255.93 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a formatting error it may have appeared to the reviewer as a group of references, as the draft text was not displayed. It works now, but in looking at the draft it just tells about the person and what they have done. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please review Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:24, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Rakibnrt


Rakibnrt (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rakibnrt You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. If you are attempting to write about yourself, please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:54, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Ajayprakashyadav

It got declined. I am not sure what may be the possible reason

Ajayprakashyadav (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayprakashyadav The reason was given by the reviewer in their decline message, "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." 331dot (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:27, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Dalicnc88

Hello guys, my name is Dalila. Last year I submitted a draft for review about a duo of music producer that I love but has just been rejected. The comment I received is that does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I just checked though and I believe the page does meet those criteria. The guys that I follow have got 2 gold records in Italy, they're last production for Ed Sheeran reached Silver in the UK and several other certifications around the world, so I don't understand why the draft has been rejected. They've also been grammy nominated musician for other work with Ed Sheeran. Can someone please help me or explain? I would like to move this page in the article space as I believe these guys deserved to be known.

This is the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:PARISI_(Music_Producer)

Dalicnc88 (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dalicnc88 To be frank, Wikipedia is not interested in if people "deserve to be known"; that's a promotional purpose and not permitted. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources state about subject, showing how they meet notability guidelines. If you truly feel that the reviewer erred in their judgement, please contact them directly and articulate the specific aspects of the notability criteria this band meets, and offer your independent reliable sources that support that. Most of your sources seem to simply cite the existence of their music, and do not have significant coverage of the duo. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your reply, I will contact the reviewer directly. I believe there are reliable sources that meets the criteria for the WP:MUSICBIO.

Hi Dalicnc88. The content of your draft makes assessing the notability for this topic very difficult. I might not have rejected it but I certainly would have declined it. (I only reject, as opposed to declining on notability grounds, if it's fairly clear the necessary sources are unlikely to exist out in the world, which for this subject would require me to look for sources myself). It's possible the reviewer of your draft did an independent search for sources, I don't know. More people should use rejection rather than declines, because we do a disservice to people to lead them on thinking that their drafts are "fixable" and to put more time into them, when the subject is (or very likely is) not notable, where no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Nevertheless, for this draft, If the topic **might** be notable, the draft does not demonstrate that at all well, and has other foundational issues. The rejection does not ultimately mean you cannot re-submit, but you would need to put in a LOT or work, with a lot better understanding, in order to overcome the current draft's issues, and that would only be effective if the sources we need actually exist, which the draft effectively demonstrated (in a way it does not right now).

Let's start with a chief "fixable" issue: the draft is a blatant commercial, and would never be acceptable given its promotion, i.e., extreme lack of neutrality (see also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch). They're "virtuosic"? Really? An encyclopedia would never properly offer such hagiographic, evaluative opinion. At best, it's possible such evaluation could be given in a quotation by a third party, marked as such, in a larger article with a criticism section, but even that might be a bit much, From that start, the biography section is rife with empty buzz words/market-speak/puffery. They "share a brotherhood immersed in music"? They have a "pioneering approach"? Am I reading the subjects' [shamelessly self-promoting] website, rather than an encyclopedia article? Whenever I see material like this in a submitted draft, my guess is that the submitter has no prior experience with an encyclopedia – has nothing to compare it to – to think it might be even approaching okay.

As to notability, the draft suffers from a variety of problems that make assessing notability difficult. What we're looking for are reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detailTemplate:Z21, that are used to verify the information content. It's very difficult to evaluate the presence of such sources when there are numerous useless sources being cited that we would have to exclude to find if there are any being used that do meet our standards – and it becomes even more difficult when such sources are being used in improper manner.

Let's take that sentence with "virtuosic", and its cited source as an example. First, the source is the duo's own website, so it's a primary source (not secondary or independent of the subject). It contributes nothing towards establishing notability. It also violates the prohibitions on use of primary sources, since it is being used for evaluative purposes, and to boot, is very much "unduly self-serving". But there's a far more fundamental problem with the use (which is the same for some others): Even if it wasn't improper for verifying such material, it does NOT verify the majority of the material it is cited in relation to: not that their "virtuosic", nor "multi-instrumentalists" nor "producers" nor "remixers", nor that Jack's first name is actually "Giampaolo". Many of the other sources are just "listings", verifying some song exists. As I write at WP:NERROR: "Moreover, citation overkill to sources containing mere passing mentions of the topic is a badge of a non-notable topic and, if good sources are actually present in the mix, they will be hidden among these others from those seeking to assess a topic's demonstration of notability."

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalicnc88: Damn. I've just discovered the plagiarism and copyright infringement in the draft. (I didn't realize when I wrote "Am I reading the subjects' [shamelessly self-promoting] website, rather than an encyclopedia article?, that I was.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:27:19, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Mridula Mukhia

Mridula Mukhia (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mridula Mukhia You don't ask a question, but the draft was deleted as blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mridula Mukhia It's unnecessary to copy your draft to here, it is linked to above. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted because it does nothing other than tell of the existence of the organization. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:09, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Bijendrameel

Bijendrameel (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero reliable independent sources and no indication that you are notable, hence it was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:38, 24 May 2021 review of submission by Lisabeth234

Lisabeth234 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:19, 24 May 2021 review of draft by JohnH.Jackson VP


Hello! I hope I did not just miss the answer, but I sent a message on the 5th of May regarding a draft and it has been archived, I repost it here, hoping that it is fine:

"The draft of the page has been rejected due to a lack of objectivity, I tried to delete the words and paragraphs being subjective or implying a value, but I would like to know how I could improve the draft still. I took also a look at other similar pages (and also at the page about "other stuff exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists to see the relevance of the comparison) to improve the draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_C._Vis_Moot & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_C._Jessup_International_Law_Moot_Court_Competition)

In the meantime, I added a few citations that are neutral (in a sense that coming from 1. not the subject of the article nor the people related to it and 2. relevant sources and entities) and continued with making the text more neutral to fit with the pillar n*2. For one of the comments made about the fact that it sounded more like advertising, I tried to delete the parts that were not purely factual, but I wonder if this includes the description of some technical aspects of the topic of the article?"

Many thanks in advance for your reply

JohnH.Jackson VP (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JohnH.Jackson VP I think you have a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia in that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. A Wikipedia article should summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) an event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. The sources you provide are either associated with the event, or merely report some aspect of the event itself, they don't give it in depth coverage that goes beyond just telling about it. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:03, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Hunaniaeth


I have made an urgent enquiry of Bkissin – who first read my original draft – but have not had a response, hence posting my query here. I find that my draft article – Harry Holland (artist) – has been published on Wikitia, not in the latest revision, and Wikitia require payment for requisite editing. In the first place, I am perturbed as to how this has happened but secondly it is surely shocking that articles waiting to be re-reviewed can somehow be highjacked in this way. Does the history of revisions give a clue as to how the article has been taken? What is the Wikipedia stance on this? And can my draft article still be published on Wikipedia? Hunaniaeth (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC) Hunaniaeth (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hunaniaeth It is still possible for the draft to be published if you resolve the issues raised. It's doubtful that the person who copied the draft and transferred it left an edit behind. It's fine for them to do so as long as they provide attribution(the terms of Wikipedia's licensing). If they didn't, you could complain, but it probably wouldn't accomplish much. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:37, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Barlingsouth


Any feedback on this please - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Higher_Education_Policy_Institute - I know I submitted it only a few days ago, but I have been trying for some time now, and really want to get this right!!! Thank you!

Barlingsouth (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick read, your sources are terrible. With the exceptions of itv (404'd), Financial Times (Walled) and the two HEPI-controlled sources (connexion to subject) all of your sources are too sparse to support an article on HEPI. None of them actually discuss the organisation in any significant depth, just summarising and analysing the conclusions of their studies. This isn't enough for notability, even for a think tank. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:00, 24 May 2021 review of draft by Mattstead

My Wikipedia submission was declined. It is an article describing a new open source format (MED) that is the next evolution of an existing format (MEF) for which there IS a wikipedia page. This does not make sense to me. I am the creator of both formats, but I was not the author of the existing MEF Wikipedia page.

MED == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Data" MEF == "Multiscale Electrophysiology Format"

Mattstead (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is written more like a specsheet, not as an encyclopaedia article. We also don't do notability-by-osmosis. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

03:39:51, 25 May 2021 review of draft by 1.39.250.68


1.39.250.68 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 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 the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:25, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Sneha-SIPL

Need suggestion to improve or submit draft for Dr. Shivani Khetan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shivani_Khetan as the article is having significant coverage, sources and also reliable.

Sneha-SIPL (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to the non-English sources, every single English source cited is unacceptable - you have interviews, online storefronts, and passing mentions. No third-party in-depth coverage of her. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:10, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Infantry28

Infantry28 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar pages on Wikipedia. Why it has been rejected when it also followed the prescribed format? What advise can you give to have this page published? Thank you

The draft has no content and no references. If this is an attempt at a biography of a living person, follow guidelines at WP:BLP David notMD (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:42, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Mridula Mukhia


Mridula Mukhia (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC) I am trying to make a wiki page for Siliguri Times which is a news web portal, but unfortunately, I'm not being able to. Every time I upload my composition, it says that it's more like an advertisement. When I remove all the links and just write the basic information, the response says that the info is not enough to make the page. I don't know what am I doing wrong. Could you kindly help?[reply]

Mridula Mukhia Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have not offered any such sources and it seems unlikely that they would exist for such a new organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this outlet, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:16, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Nintednic13


Hi I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with the article 'Rahul Suntah' as I made sure there is information from as much reliable sources as possible. Also could I know what exactly is wrong with the way the article was written?

Nintednic13 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nintednic13 The sources offered seem to be interviews with him or merely cite the existence of his music. A Wikipedia article about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Interviews are a primary source and do not establish notability. Having a lot of YouTube views is not part of the notability criteria(mostly because that is easily gamed and/or means little). Merely releasing an album also does not establish notability; please review the notability criteria to see if this musician meets at least one aspect of it. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:33, 25 May 2021 review of submission by 83.218.248.79

Dear editors, please re-reviev the page. We are deleted all un allowed data and correct the structure. 83.218.248.79 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? If you are E.tsymbalenko, please log in. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Draft:Terra0

Draft:Terra0

I recently wrote my first Wikipedia article. It was rejected due to insufficient, reliable sources. I have understood the criticism and corrected the errors to the best of my knowledge, but I lack insight into whether there are other points of criticism, which is why I would be happy about precise assistance (if needed)! In general, do I just resubmit rejected items after the issues have been resolved or is it recommended to discuss them in Talk pages first? Thanks! PLTPRX (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:49, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Hockey4lyfe

Hockey4lyfe (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey4lyfe You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:45, 25 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bela Adu

Hi, I have put a lot of effort into creating the wikipedia page for the Romanian musician, Zoli Toth. I have provided a wealth of references from newspapers and magazines that are in no way related to the subject of this article. It is my impression that the reviewer limited his evaluation to the references that are in English. Google translate works very well from Romanian into English, so it should be no problem to provide a fair review. Thank you very much for your help! Bela Adu (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Bela Adu Bela Adu (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bela Adu You have a lot of sources- in a funny way, that's actually problematic refbombing. Wikipedia prefers a smaller number of sources with more significant coverage; if you need a lot of sources each with a little piece of information, that shows the person does not get significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person or a notable musician. Many of your sources seem to be citing the existence of the person's music or the individual pieces of recognition they got. Please see Your First Article. I might suggest focusing a draft on the top three most significant sources about this person, summarizing what they say about him. Sources that just tell what he has done or show where his music can be found or are a routine announcement do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:48, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Josie.mcjoserson

Hello,

I submitted an article draft for the Virtana company. I received a notification that my submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Please help me understand why this is the case. I referred to the Dynatrace Wikipedia page (it is company that is similar to Virtana) and used similar reference publications (except for press releases).

While a few of the historical references in my submission might be brief (after all they are just setting the context for how the subject got to the present), most references discuss the subject or its products/services in detail.

I limited my references to secondary sources consisting of business or industry publications. Also, I did not reference the subject’s web site or its own publications, press releases, etc.

  • I have 26 third-party references from business and technology related publications’ articles related to Virtana and/or its products.
    • 14 references are from within the past 3 years (2018 - present)
    • 12 references are after the company renamed itself to Virtana
    • 14 references are from when the company was named Virtual Instruments
  • Business publications
    • Silicon Valley Business Journal
    • CIO Review
    • ExecutiveBiz
  • Industry/Trade publications or Analyst reports
    • SearchStorage
    • CRN (Computer Reseller News)
    • Network World
    • Network Computing
    • InfoStor
    • The Register
    • eWeek
    • ComputerWeekly
    • Data Center Dynamics
    • ZDnet
    • siliconANGLE
    • Intellyx
    • Bloor Research
    • SNMP Center
    • IT Pro
    • Myce
    • The Silicon Review

I would like to modify my submission as necessary to make it compliant with Wikipedia’s requirements. To that end, would you please help by answering the following?

Q: Which of these publications/references are not considered reliable?

Q: Are there areas of information that are missing? I included the company name, what it does, its CEO, history, partnerships, and industry recognition. Would including a description of its current products be helpful?

Thank you very much!

Josie.mcjoserson (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josie.mcjoserson I am wondering if you have a connection to this company. If so, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
Regarding your inquiry, it's not usually a good idea to use other articles as a guide for yours. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. Please read other stuff exists. We try to address such articles, but we can only address what we know about; it is possible to get inappropriate content by us.
You may not be using press releases, but most of your sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, this does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Significant coverage goes beyone merely telling what the company does, and gives in depth analysis and comments. Please see Your First Article. (your draft is linked to in this posting, it does not need to be reproduced here) 331dot (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:28:13, 25 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ResourceMaverick


Trying to get a page set up for author Marin Katusa, I am not good with computers and the to the bibliography, any help would be appreciated

ResourceMaverick (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ResourceMaverick Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You have written what this person has done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Sources that just tell what the person has done and interviews with him do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. If you work for or represent him, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:06, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Telenovelafan215


The article was declined because: it does not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I have added 21 references for the series from different sources. On my talk page I was told that because the subject is an upcoming TV series. Future TV series are seldom notable, and this is no exception. It is premiering in 47 days (July 11, 2021). I would really like to get the article approved but I don't know what else to do to improve it. I was also accused of being paid for my edits because I want the article to be approved. I have created many articles for TV shows when they were still upcoming series and had not premiered yet and not once were they rejected. This is the first time I have had this problem where an article for an upcoming television series was moved to a draft space.

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:32, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Russlowe

Hi! I submitted this for re-review a while ago and I can’t figure out why it’s taking so long… I really need to get it published. Thanks for your help. Russlowe (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the message displayed whenever anyone asks a question here, "If you are waiting for a reviewer to review your draft, please be patient, as drafts are reviewed in no specific order. The reviewing process currently has a 5+ months backlog, with 4,966 pending submissions waiting for review. Please do not ask for a reviewer to tell you the status of your draft or to review it faster." Your draft has been pending for less than two months, which really isn't all that bad. We're all volunteers here, and someone will get to your draft eventually. Thanks for understanding! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


May 26

00:29:05, 26 May 2021 review of draft by RaileyHearts


RaileyHearts (talk) 00:29, 26 May 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 the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:25:13, 26 May 2021 review of submission by 95.70.176.125

95.70.176.125 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources are worthless, with five of them being the same copypasta'd press release, with the remainder being interviews or incredibly short articles that are no use for notability in any circumstance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:40, 26 May 2021 review of submission by InaJac


Is it possible to speed up the release process of the entry about DOVID in any way? Thanks for your help!

InaJac (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InaJac As noted on your submission, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,987 pending submissions waiting for review." It's actually come down, it was five months last week. It's not a queue; volunteers pick drafts to review in no particular order, there is no way to "jump the line". You will need to be patient. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now see your paid editing declaration; Wikipedia has no deadlines, and to be frank is unconcerned with any deadlines that have been imposed on you. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:47:43, 26 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir

Hello Help Desk. I am new in Wikipedia. I have researched and found info about Draft:M. Rezaul Hassan . He is one of the most renowned businessman on IT sector in Bangladesh. Moreover you can find many sources in it. I have submitted 3 times . Before that I was not aware of the fact that I should not create any page if it is on Draft space. However Honourable Administrators removed it and also marked the draft as Spam. I am really disappointed. I made tje article from my own sake. But unfortunately i used some promoting words . But I have removed them also. I am working on the draft. If it is deleted then my working will remain no value. If there is any citation problem I am also searching for it now. I hope help desk will remain kindfull on my work and let me have a time to proper citation and make the article don't like promotion .

MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:50:11, 26 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kashmir987

Dear Editor, Kashmir News Bureau is Multimedia news agency and prominent in India with more the 5 million Followers and readers. Kindly review the decision.


Kashmir987 (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmir987: folllowers don't help getting a Wikipedia article, indeependent reliable sources do. The current draft contains at most one, and is promotional in nature, at least in its About Kashmir News Bureau section. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:35:48, 26 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kallu Kumhar


Kallu Kumhar (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:14, 26 May 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:B1C:2786:C83C:5978:B7CF:349E

2402:3A80:B1C:2786:C83C:5978:B7CF:349E (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, which means it will not considered further. Wikipedia is not a social network; you can use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. to tell the world about yourself. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:40, 26 May 2021 review of submission by Ethiohistoryenthusiast

My draft was rejected for not having reliable sources but I am not sure why my resources were rejected as unreliable. Why are my sources unreliable? They are not only published books but are available to be viewed online.

Ethiohistoryenthusiast (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:17, 26 May 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:183C:6AF:0:1:E39C:3101

2402:3A80:183C:6AF:0:1:E39C:3101 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:09, 26 May 2021 review of submission by Prizwan5

Prizwan5 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1025263297"