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 2405:201:b:f005:65d1:548c:2060:90ae (talk) at 16:14, 5 August 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


July 30

11:01:35, 30 July 2021 review of submission by RASSIOPEIA

I have removed the promotional content and added reliable sources, the subject is also mentioned in The New York Times. I think the article is ready to be in mainspace. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RASSIOPEIA The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. We don't want mere mentions, but significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources, showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. If you work for this company, you must make a paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot (talk, I don't work for the company they just hired me to cleanup the promotional content and submit it for review, I have disclosed my paid edits on my user page. Can you tell me how can I resubmit for review? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RASSIOPEIA If you were hired by them, you work for them even if you are not an employee. A rejection means that the draft may not be resubmitted at this time. If you were hired to get the draft approved and already given money, I'd suggest returning it or otherwise informing them you will be unable to fulfill that directive. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:14, 30 July 2021 review of submission by 117.222.163.68


pls help,provided the references 117.222.163.68 (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that the organization does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:00, 30 July 2021 review of submission by Kmkumbher

Sher Kumbher ia a famous musical artist from our village, he is notable in hour country pakistan even somewhere in the world also. He has to be on wikipedia, Its my request to create page about Sher Kumbher muscial artist Kmkumbher (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kmkumbher Unfortunately, he does not seem to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:17, 30 July 2021 review of submission by Schwartz Jeremy


Schwartz Jeremy (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed below. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:57, 30 July 2021 review of submission by Lordmetal666


It seems that this week, reviewers are not paying attention to the content on the article at all. Please, read it carefully instead of rejecting it simply for cleaning the articles queue. This article is about a person that is a notable musician with lots of achievements. Thanks.

Lordmetal666 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lordmetal666 This has nothing to do with clearing out the queue. It appears that this person does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable creative professional. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. If you feel the reviewer erred, you will need to discuss it with them directly. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you guys say this doesn't meet the criteria for a Wikipedia Article? This artist is the responsible for appearing FOUR times in Japanese Music Charts, also being part of a supergroup. This situation is ALL WRONG. Those reviewers are very disruptive on declining articles for nothing. I can see a LOT of people saying the same thing I am. Lordmetal666 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lordmetal666 Please put follow up comments in this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. As I said, if you feel the reviewer erred, please calmly and civilly discuss it with them. I personally don't disagree with the comments left by reviewers. If he was part of a band, he would not necessarily merit a standalone article. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Lordmetal666 All the sources in your draft are about the bands he was in, or just press releases. If you can find coverage of him, then the article might be accepted. Otherwise, all you're doing is barely showing the notability of his bands, so the info can go there. Maybe after the band releases its second album there might be more. If you don't improve the article and keep submitting it, it will be salted and deleted. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:32, 30 July 2021 review of submission by Schwartz Jeremy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeremy_Schwartz I am confused simply for no reason rejected. There are sources and they are of high quality. Schwartz Jeremy (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schwartz Jeremy The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers. Note that autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged per the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:41, 30 July 2021 review of draft by Poems for Parliament


One of my references is coming up with a date error, I can't work out how to fix it. I would also like to know whether my style is sufficiently impartial as I am explaining a subject that is considered contentious by some, which may be the reason there is no entry for it although the concept has existed for a long time.

Poems for Parliament (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Poems for Parliament: This looks fixed now. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Poems for Parliament: I cleaned up the grammar and tone, and changed second person references to third person. You'll want more sources to demonstrate that this subject deserves its own article (see WP:RS and WP:GNG) or else you'll have to find another article to merge this content into. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:04:37, 30 July 2021 review of submission by Mojarra69

I am not sure why I got routed here. I am trying to get a wiki page set up for my book(s) and I have provided a review that meets your requirement of "This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and REVIEWS" The review I included was not of social media, Wiki, or Goodreads. It was provided by a legit review web site called Literary Titan. I believe the page should be created so I can add to it and get started building the wiki links from it Mojarra69 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook. Goodreads and Amazon are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mojarra69 The reviewers gave you good info. Besides the sources written by the author himself, there are two blogs, which while questionably reliable, do not demonstrate notability. Pro tip: If you see a link to buy a book on a page, chances are it's not going to help show notability. Without more sourcing, the article will not be accepted. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:46:03, 30 July 2021 review of draft by Eric Myer


I am asking about a submission that was declined. It is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jon_Myer. It appears that I had accidentally added a space in a reference, which a reviewer noticed. I believe that I have remedied this issue, and I have resubmitted the submisssion. Have I handled this properly?

Eric Myer (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help. Just left a message on your talk page. JSFarman (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

04:02:23, 31 July 2021 review of submission by Ayush111999

i want this article on wikipedia. if there is any error so plese advice me with example and refferances.

Ayush111999 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ayush111999 I want a Ferrari. I have my doubts that I am going to get one. Contact any of the reviewers who decline your draft and ask their advice FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:58, 31 July 2021 review of draft by Humming sapien


What are the ways to prove the authenticity of the sources? Humming sapien (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humming sapien That's not the issue. Interviews and Facebook do not establish notability because they are primary sources, from the person themselves. To establish notability, you must have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the person- sources that have chosen on their own to write about the person in an in depth manner. An article summarizes what others say about the subject, not what it says about itself. If no sources choose to given this person significant coverage, they would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:35, 31 July 2021 review of draft by Veinnill


may I know which details need to add to improve my article. Veinnill (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veinnill Multiple independent reliable sources and draft expansion (what is the initiative all about, what is its purpose, background etc. in detail) are required to prove notability. was the message left for you by the reviewer. Does that not tell you? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:25:31, 31 July 2021 review of submission by Hrajpal96

Can you help me by highlighting the content where there is a lack of credible and independent source for the notability of the person for which the article is being published. Since I have added all possible, credible and independent valid sources available online to highlight that the person in question is a real and meets the criteria for Wikipedia's publishing. Hrajpal96 (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hrajpal96 if I could see any content you have created I would be able to give you an answer. We don't search blanked submissions FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:05, 31 July 2021 review of submission by Doctorray02

my article was first label speedy deletion and i recreate the article and also same thing so i went and recreate it in my sandbox for submission and my my submission is not accepted why is all this happening Doctorray02 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctorray02 Every single attempt has been deleted as an advert. That ought to give you the answer you seek. We do not do advertising FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:12, 31 July 2021 review of submission by 188.76.127.47

Hello, I am Andrés, and I am from Barañain. I have read Nicolás many times on the internet, and I decided to create this Wikipedia article in order to help the newspapers who write about Nicolás to understand his background. I think it's necessary, and also important. I don't understand how can Nico be judged without relevance if he has convinced 3000 people in Navarre for some initiatives, and Government of Navarre president María Chivite has been supporting all his initiatives? Please, consider.--188.76.127.47 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC) 188.76.127.47 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:21, 31 July 2021 review of submission by BeatriceBevania

I have been editing a new article on the topic of intimate partners abuse worldwide. Yet, my submission has been declined many times due to 'insufficient content for the article to be a new article'. They have referred me to merge it with the 'Domestic VIolence' article. However, after consideration, I found our point of view and perspective of domestic violence are different, and it is difficult and awkward to merge them together when the focus of our articles were different. Is there any ways for me to improve my draft and could be accepted to be posted up in the Wikipedia community? BeatriceBevania (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatriceBevania in general one finds that, when multiple people give the same advice, and you disagree, that you are marching to a different drummer. Unsurprisingly, a reviewer has lost patience with your refusal to take advice and rejected your draft.
Difficult and Awkward are not reasons not to take the oft offered advice. They are a challenge. I suggest you rise to that challenge.
Wikipedia articles should have absolutely zero point of view, they must be flat, neutral, factual, and record that which is said in independent secondary reliable source es that are independent of the topic. If you have a poinyt of view you may not push it here.
There is no "our article" concept. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:16, 31 July 2021 review of draft by Maiabaia123!


sisi (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have difficulties to understand why the draft is rejected - there is a request to add certain references to the Biography and to Fellowships and Memberships sections - but don't see from where I can provide more references to these sections... the draft title is Ruxandra Botez - I checked other drafts and they do not have references for such sections. I only added references from the literature.

@Maiabaia123: your draft has not been rejected. It has been pushed back to you for further work, with a full ratioonale. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:06:03, 31 July 2021 review of submission by BeatriceBevania

I have been editing a new article on the topic of intimate partners abuse worldwide. Yet, my submission has been declined many times due to 'insufficient content for the article to be a new article'. They have referred me to merge it with the 'Domestic VIolence' article. However, after consideration, I found our point of view and perspective of domestic violence are different, and it is difficult and awkward to merge them together when the focus of our articles were different. I hope this page could be created to build up some global awareness of intimate partner violence within the community. Is there any ways for me to improve my draft and could be accepted to be posted up in the Wikipedia community? BeatriceBevania (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BeatriceBevania please do not ask the same question twice. The answer is up there ^^^^
Wikipedia is not a pulpit for your views, however laudable FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:23:15, 31 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Rillington


The article about television channel Sky Max has been rejected twice, and on the same grounds despite me adding three more references - two are independent references and the third is from the official Sky press release which provides full details about the channel. I will be adding a further independent reference.

Given that many articles on Wikipedia have far fewer independent references than the number on this article, I am curious to know just how many more references are going to be needed for this article to be added to Wikipedia.

Any help would be appreciated. Rillington (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly press releases are not independent and have zero value in supporting any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that but they do provide a good source of information about the subject and I shall be adding at least one more independent reference. Rillington (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are NOT a good source of information, they are a primary source, so of very little use. Theroadislong (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But how many more references from non-primary sources are likely to be required until the article is deemed good enough ton be removed from draft? As I say, I know of at least one further independent reference. Rillington
I've now added two more independent references, one replaces a primary source. Surely this is sufficient? Rillington (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rillington, I think you should wait until the channel actually starts. I suspect it's quite likely to generate some independent press coverage. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point but in truth, it is likely to actually launch with little coverage as most of the coverage of channel launches other than clips of the actual launch posted on sites such as YouTube will come from when the channel is announced. Rillington (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is Wikipedia:NORUSH. Theroadislong (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there's nothing wrong with continuing to make further improvements. Rillington (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're not interested in the up-and-coming; it must have already arrived and outlets not connected to the subject must have written about it at length in order for us to even consider having an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are always plenty of articles on Wikipedia about forthcoming events. Rillington (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:28, 31 July 2021 review of submission by Aria Moayerian

Hi there,

First of all let me thank you for your time to review my Draft "Jalaledin Moayerian" and sorry if it appears contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia which was unintentional. As you know this is my first article and your advices would be helpful for me to know the reason of rejection of this submission.

Meanwhile, it would be appreciated if you could answer my questions below to improve my knowledge about Wikipedia articles to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

1. I have been advised to blow up and start over my draft. Could you please let me know how I can blow up the existing draft.

2. Please let me know which phrases / sentences of my draft are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia to be deleted/amended in the next revision.

3. I have been considered as a close connection with this subject due to my surname. Is it permitted by Wikipedia if I create another account 'with an unknown username' and submit this draft to avoid the conflict of interest which was mentioned in the note provided by the reviewer.

Your anticipated attention is highly appreciated. Best regards, Aria Moayerian (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Moayerian, your submission was rejected, meaning it cannot be resubmitted. Your submission wasn’t found to be notable and was being resubmitted without improvement.
You can ‘blow up’ the draft by tagging it with template:Db-g7 before recreating it. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aria Moayerian Please do not create a new account. That would not remove the conflict of interest, and attempting to conceal it would make you look very bad. And it wouldn't work since you just proposed doing so; any other account that recreates the draft would risk being blocked as a sockpuppet. If you have a conflict of interest, we want you to be open about it. Submitting drafts is the proper way for you to edit. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aria Moayerian Reading and following this essay, which is one of many on article creation, will help you.
    Set aside 100% of what you know about them. Write ''only'' what you find in the references.
    Creating a new account and editing from it will lead to an investigation for sockpuppetry and will likely remove your editing privileges (0.95 probability) FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and @Timtrent Thanks a lot for your advices. For sure I won't create another account and it was just a question. Regarding my connection with the topic; Jalal Moayerian ,the Makeup Artist, is my uncle who lives in Tehran-Iran and I am an Engineer, live in Canada and here is my Linkein profile for your reference: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aria-moayerian-p-eng-39343913/ So, there is not any conflict of Interest in between. Last year, I was informed in the news that Jalal got COVID-19 and I followed his health status by searching in the internet and I noticed there is not any article in Wikipedia about him though he is a very well known person in Iran as makeup artist with 50 years good achievement in this field. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and welcomes every user to add value to that, I decided to write an article about him. I just tried to gather related reliable sources and did my best to summarize the published news and translate it to English from Farsi. Having said that, I am a simple user same as others and there is not any conflict of interest. At the end, I really appreciate for your time to help me and as per Timtrent, I start writing another article about Jalaledin Moayerian with consideration of this essay. Thanks! Aria Moayerian (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

00:16:08, 1 August 2021 review of submission by HappyMeal69

Hi. I dont understand why my page was not accepted. I have used footnotes, and the sources are reliable. HappyMeal69 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyMeal69: Now that you've added footnotes and sources, you could click the "resubmit" button to put your draft back in the queue. But there seems to already be an article about her; you can find it at Jorunn Gleditsch Lossius. I'd recommend adding the content that you've written into that article. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:52:51, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Mihimatha Thorathuru


Mihimatha Thorathuru (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:14:54, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Mihimatha Thorathuru

Please Submit My Article, Please Thank You Wikipedia Mihimatha Thorathuru (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Mihimatha Thorathuru (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Hashintha[reply]

Page has been deleted as blatant and irreparable promotion/advertizing. We have little tolerance for autobiographies and attempts to advertize. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:22, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Menu maharaj

Hey please review this Draft : CarryMinati videography again because this article is totally different from CarryMinati, it's about his videography and I believe this article have enough content for article creation so it should be approved thanku. Menu maharaj (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Menu maharaj I am the third reviewer to disagree with you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:16, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Drmanishgunjan

Kindly check before declining. The article is about Dr who died of cardia arrest post covid who saved patient the day doctor himself died. There is no personal glorification by Dr Manish Gunjan from heaven. If you do due dillegence instead of blindly rejecting it will save lot of emotions and hardwork for me. Drmanishgunjan (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmanishgunjan your user name is that of the person you wrote about. Please read Help:Your first article and try again with pleasure FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I used as user so to give respect to doctor so tell me excatly how to change the user name to retrieve the page back

here is details(please enlighten me where it is written that author name & article name cannot be same) : Username and privacy If you create an account, you can pick a user name provided it is available and unique. Edits you make while logged in will be assigned to that name, not to your IP address. You will have your own permanent user page where you can write a bit about yourself. While Wikipedia is not a homepage provider, you can use this to display a few free pictures, write about your hobbies, etc. Many users use their user page to maintain a list of the articles they are most proud of, or to collect other valuable information from Wikipedia.

You will also have a permanent talk page you can use to communicate with other users. You will be notified whenever someone writes a message on your talk page. If you choose to give an e-mail address, other users will be able to contact you by e-mail. This feature is anonymous; the user who emails you will not know your e-mail address.

You are actually less identifiable logged in than you are as an unregistered editor, owing to the hiding of your IP address (so long as you avoid disclosing identifiable information on your user page). You might want to consider privacy and the possibility of offline harassment, when deciding what to say on your user page.

See the section WP:MISLEADNAME.Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmanishgunjan please be clear: You must write about the doctor in a manner suitable for Wikipedia. This is not their memorial page. Memorials are outside the scope of Wikipedia. Pleass do this from your new user name. You may simply abandon this one or request a change of name. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How to change the username to GodSis? Kindly help if it can help me to get page back.Thank you

@Drmanishgunjan: Please sign your posts using ~~~~. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:43, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Bananabeer



I'm asking to see if the citations below would be appropriate for addressing the comments "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. "

These are the news article that cover the work of the subject (Soroush Saghafian) we are trying to createa a page on. Could you please let me know? I appreciate your thoughts.

https://www.industryglobalnews24.com/new-research-explores-on-increasing-transparency-in-the-health-care-sector

https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/transparency-healthcare-sector-more-might-not-be-better

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20191211/Increasing-transparency-in-the-healthcare-system-may-not-be-always-better.aspx


Bananabeer (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:25:22, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Bananabeer


I'm asking to see if the citations below would be appropriate for addressing the comments "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. "

These are the news article that cover the work of the subject (Soroush Saghafian) we are trying to createa a page on. Could you please let me know? I appreciate your thoughts.

https://www.industryglobalnews24.com/new-research-explores-on-increasing-transparency-in-the-health-care-sector

https://www.managedhealthcareexecutive.com/view/transparency-healthcare-sector-more-might-not-be-better

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20191211/Increasing-transparency-in-the-healthcare-system-may-not-be-always-better.aspx


Bananabeer (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bananabeer Those are each to his research. More references for that will not change its notability. The challenge every article about an academic has if to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'm pretty sure they do not assist you.
An acacdemic produces research. That is not always a useful reference for their Wikipedia notability. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely.
What is said about the perosn?
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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 12:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Timtrent Thank you so much for the clarification. Based on the references you provided, I found two secondary sources (books) that discuss the work of the subject. Would it qualify as a more reliable source of a citation?

https://books.google.co.kr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RDplDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA79&ots=HoXzaJbO7f&sig=61nL8V74Hv-krj0aP4X3LnvFKzQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-658-23516-1

11:49:35, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Samsonite Man

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I have a draft article about a Japanese tv show Sukkiri. My draft was rejected because of lack of sources. My problem is that all the sources are in Japanese. I think the article in English should be accepted to be translated and sourced by someone who understands Japanese.

Samsonite Man (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsonite Man we have no problem with Japanese references FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent My point was that the sources are in Japanese. I can't expand the article any further. Samsonite Man (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samsonite Man your best hope is to find a speaker of Japanese. Or use Google Translate, whcich is acceptable for reading references and writing from what they say. Or you can let it wither on the vine FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:59, 1 August 2021 review of submission by SiliconProphet


Recent events with this individual may make them finally notable. I understand that due to her trolls attempting to make articles on her in the past we have been more strict on this topic, but I propose a serious reexamining of our policies on the article, perhaps creating the article and making it extended-protected, and applying notability to all elements of the article rather than merely the subject herself to avoid an entire section on her shirts or anything else like that SiliconProphet (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SiliconProphet If you have new information or the situation has otherwise changed, given that it was rejected a year ago I would start over with a fresh draft, or you could ask the reviewer to reconsider given this new information. Notability is judged with regards to the named topic, they are either notable or not. They aren't notable by association with another topic. Articles- if this gets that far- are not preemptively protected. There must be a demonstrable problem requiring protection. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:28, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Astrosquid


In Notability_(academics) the second criteria is met "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.". The IOP Silver medal is highly prestigious and competitive. The sixth criteria is also met "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society" by being elected as VP for IAU Division C.

Astrosquid (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:54, 1 August 2021 review of submission by Niketanjha


Niketanjha (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:38, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Govsustain


What kinds of sources would help with this submission in my researchI pulled all of the news stories I could find on the topic but there were not academic articles? 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Govsustain (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Govsustain We need independent reliable sources with significant coverage that have chosen on their own to write about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Press releases, staff interviews, and announcements of routine activities do not establish notability. If no independent sources give this organization significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:02, 1 August 2021 review of submission by 2601:406:4D03:49D0:47B:329B:161:1F42


How many articles should we include and what would make this article sound less of a vanity article from a fan? 2601:406:4D03:49D0:47B:329B:161:1F42 (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:36, 1 August 2021 review of draft by Pakkapull


Pakkapull (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pakkapull, it appears the subject isn’t notable, failing WP:MUSICBIO. The references are lacking and unreliable and the tone may need to be fixed. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2

02:27:30, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Fianaarmstrong1


Fianaarmstrong1 (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:27:30, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Fianaarmstrong1 


I am asking for another review on this subject because the article has been rewritten many times with corrections made to it.

Also, all the information is correct in this article plus this article is not from a "selling point" INSTEAD this article is proven facts and events that Anna F. Tenney, better known to her followers on social media as Official Anna Tenney. It includes a newspaper article written about Anna. Also includes Anna's IMDb. Please review the article again. Also, please help get it ready to be published. Anna deserves to be a Wiki Article for her fans and others to look up information about her. There are many other articles : written and published about a lot fewer subjects while Anna has a career in acting and social media. what is needed again please help get this article published

Your submission was rejected, with no option to resubmit. Also IDMB is not a reliable source. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:53:52, 2 August 2021 review of draft by Santana MontanaQP


Santana MontanaQP (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Undecline

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:19, 2 August 2021 review of draft by Friedl 11


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Georg_Sporschill was declined (references) Friedl 11 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC) I modified section 1 and 2 in "Life" and changed the references. Are these two sections now ok and shall a proceed with the following accordingly? --Friedl 11 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They appear mostly okay, perhaps you could limit the works listed to three of the most important. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:42, 2 August 2021 review of draft by 5555534gff


5555534gff (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A single reference that gives a passing mention with a lack of WP:SIGCOV is nowhere near enough to establish notability. You likely need to expand the references quickly or risk a rejection with no more resubmissions possible. If you cannot do this the subject is likely not notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:20, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Rubbyfem

Hello, why was the article rejected? I wrote it from a neutral point of view. How do you advise it should be written? Rubbyfem (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbyfem, No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. The submission was rejected because it didn’t indicate notability. A rejected submission cannot be resubmitted. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:33, 2 August 2021 review of draft by Veproctor


Hi, I am requesting help on the page I'm writing about the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology. I have been using the British Thoracic Society page and European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology page as guides, yet both these pages reference their own websites, or archived versions of their websites when it comes to source material. I have also done this, but sadly had my references turned down several times and I am wondering how my efforts differ from the aforementioned two pages? Can you guide me on when it is appropriate to use the charity website as source material and when it is not appropriate? Thank you.

Veproctor (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veproctor, using ones own website is considered the use of a WP:PRIMARY source. Primary sources are not able to establish notability on their own but they can help support. I recommend you add neutral independent references from 3rd party sources. That would likely lead to an accept. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:03, 2 August 2021 review of submission by ChristianTurvill1

This article was declined and i was hoping to get some specific feedback on how to progress with its publicaiton? ChristianTurvill1 (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianTurvill1 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, in multiple secondary sources which are 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 12:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:24, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Bistab


This is about submission Draft:Umm Al Quwain Free Trade Zone. It was rejected because it was written that it reads like an advertisment. I tried to fix it but couldn't find anything that was advertising. It is written in same fashion as of other trade free zones in UAE. For notability, I would like to bring your notice to these sources in particular:


  • [1] Part of a case study by a reputed university - University of Hull. Plenty of information about the organisation in this.
  • [2] A book discussing the organization in detail.
  • [3] - Article talking about policies of organisations.

There are more but I think they are good enough to say that the organization is notable. Please look again and help.


Bistab (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bistab, The submission mainly relies on WP:PRIMARY sources from economic papers and lacks very many WP:SECONDARY sources. Perhaps you should remove one or two refs that look promotional as well. I think it may have been the references that were promotional rather then the content itself. Perhaps it would also be good to expand your submission as well. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:18, 2 August 2021 review of submission by AA in Prague


AA in Prague (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to ask what it the problem of publishing our article about American Academy in Prague. We teach students in high school, middle school and elementary school . We would like to present our school on Wikipedia. Also we have same arcticle in Czech language here https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_in_Prague. You see it´s not an ad or something like that. You can let me publish this page about our school and also let me add the photos. I mean the same which I published on Wikipedia in the Czech language.

THank you so much and have a nice day.

Šárka Němečková from American Academy in Prague

The main issue is that the submission uses WP:PEACOCK terms. Another issue is that you may have a WP:COI to declare, which you should do on your userpage. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:06:36, 2 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Gvrpkumar



Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gvrpkumar please confirm that you have read the rationales int he big, pink, decline boxes. If so then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:24, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Derangedhobbit


Hi there!

My draft was recently declined on account of "NCORP requires (at least) two references that contain *both* in-depth information *about* the *organization* and "Independent Content"'. However, I'd argue that the below three references contain both in-depth information about the organization and independent content.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ninabambysheva/2021/07/20/bitcoin-exchange-led-by-worlds-richest-crypto-billionaire-raises-record-900-million/?sh=3870a79a4e33 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/sports/esports-name-change-tsm-ftx.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/crypto-exchange-ftx-valued-at-18-billion-in-funding-round-11626800455

Could you please help review the draft once more? Thank you!

Derangedhobbit (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derangedhobbit If you have addressed the issues cited by the last reviewer, you may resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:42, 2 August 2021 review of submission by Nuttyprofessor2016


Hi, he just got awarded one of top 10 business leaders in oil and gas by a magazine, and has a new interview, should I resubmit it or wait for further exposure of this person in media? He is a recurring name in newspapers and he just launched a personal website.

Nuttyprofessor2016 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nuttyprofessor2016 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Interviews do not establish notability; we want to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:54:09, 2 August 2021 review of draft by PhiliponeLdrew


I have completed sandbox draft and attempted to submit project Thomas Vallance Wran for Review. When I fill in tags line Australia, Bibliography, sculpture a notice appears: 'Please check the draft page title. No such page exists' which seems meaningless. Where is it? I have looked to see where I have to create it, there is no guidance or indication as to what specific information is required to satisfy draft page content. PhiliponeLdrew

PhiliponeLdrew (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 3

01:41:57, 3 August 2021 review of draft by Aspiresumellc


I am requesting help to better understand why the draft was declined. The sources provided do reference the musician and some are even solely written with the artist as the primary subject. Other references included were to substantiate that venues performed at, artists collaborated with, etc., are in fact noteworthy. The artist has an extensive discography and has been publicly recognized within the electronic music industry as a producer, label manager, and disc jockey. One aspect that is challenging is that there are numerous other electronic artists with wikipedia pages who have very few references and not nearly the extensive documentation as this artist. Can you please help me to understand better? Thank you in advance for your time! Aspiresumellc (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Aspiresumellc[reply]

Aspiresumellc (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:08:43, 3 August 2021 review of draft by Bekwright


I'd uploaded an image to accompany a Wikipedia page I've been working on about Samuel A. Culbert. For some reason, the image seems to have disappeared. Can you tell me why this happened and how to fix it? Thank you!

Bekwright (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bekwright: I assume you mean File:Sam full size (1).jpg. If so, it was removed because it appearwed to be a copyright violation of https://www.huffpost.com/entry/good-people-bad-managers-an-interview-with-samuel_b_59f1ebf7e4b05f0ade1b554b. For legal reasons, we cannot host images that appear copyrighted elsewhere, unless we recive a permission statement via VRT or it can be proven that the image was here first. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

02:47:47, 3 August 2021 review of submission by Shekhar Aman

I have added all the reliable sources. I tried my best to keep the neutral view. I also removed all the external links.

Shekhar Aman (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:48, 3 August 2021 review of submission by 66.119.206.226

I have edited it to remove the areas that were originally in question (and saw their point). It is now nearly an exact replica of a couple different school district pages that I viewed to create this one yet it's been denied again. I'm a bit confused as to why theirs are fine, but this one is not when the content is similar. It is neutral and has citations throughout. I'm just confused. Thanks!

66.119.206.226 (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:11:52, 3 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Vedlagt


I have an article in my Sandbox that I would like to move to Articles for Creation. Could I get some help for this? Thank you Vedlagt (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Vedlagt (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:35:40, 3 August 2021 review of submission by Hoponpop69

Subject meets notability in lieu of past days events and media coverage. However, title should probably be moved to "Christine Weston Chandler" since that is what most sources use.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the rather horrendous history this topic has on Wikipedia, I'd be incredibly leery of touching this with a ten foot pole. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to this, how did the whole draft get deleted?Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Creating Draft:Chris-Chan, User:GorillaWarfare deleted it as being an attack page, negative, or unsourced. Unless someone vandalized the page before they viewed it, none of this is true. The article was meticulously sourced and of a neutral viewpoint.Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my reply from my talk page here since I've been pinged: If people wish to "document" this individual on outside sites, that is their prerogative, and certainly not under the purview of admins on this site. But Wikipedia is not the place for entirely negative, extremely detailed "documentation" of private, non-notable individuals, and attempts to do so (in mainspace or in other locations like drafts) can and should be deleted as harassment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:02:08, 3 August 2021 review of submission by DerveshpurGaushala


DerveshpurGaushala (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any further requests to review your drafts will be reverted off. You have been given as much help as we can provide and you are insistent on ignoring the lot of it, not to mention the sockpuppetry concerns (Main account:Derveshpur (talk · contribs)). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a draft that you submitted, it is an article in main space. You are wasting everyone's time here. Theroadislong (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:04, 3 August 2021 review of submission by Getfamouseget74


Getfamouseget74 (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My article is rejected 3 times on your website. Please let me know what should I do so that it gets approved. Heres the link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Getfamouseget74/sandbox

11:22:35, 3 August 2021 review of submission by Shekhar Aman

I have removed all the external links. I kept the article at a neutral point. Shekhar Aman (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:44, 3 August 2021 review of submission by Fundacja Okulistyka 21

Please help me add a biography. Please tell me why in the Polish version of wikipedia everything is correct, and here there is a problem? Fundacja Okulistyka 21 (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fundacja Okulistyka 21: Each language edition of Wikipedia is a seperate project with seperate rules and (likelky) different editors. One article that might be acceptable in the polish Wikipedia might not be acceptable here, and and article accepted here might not be acceptable in the polish Wikipedia, see WP:OSE for more information. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:42, 3 August 2021 review of draft by Justiyaya


Hi, I am requesting help because my draft got rejected for GNG reasons.

After letting the draft sit for quite a while, looking at the sources, I am quite sure that it meets GNG, can someone take a look at my sources, or look at my analysis below to see if the subject is notable enough, and tell me what my next steps should be?

  • 1 Fast Company, not listed on WP:RSPS, I think it's fine, but debatable
  • 2 Quartz Listed on WP:RSPS as "generally reliable"
  • 3 Chicago Tribune not listed on RSPS, I think it's fine, but also debatable
  • 4 techcrunch Listed on WP:RSPS as "less useful for the purpose of determining notability"
  • 5 forbes Likely unreliable, Forbes.com contributors.
  • 6 and 7 are self published.

(a previous version of this was archived without any response)

Also feel free to give any other feedback on the draft, thanks!

Justiyaya 12:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:21:48, 3 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Star Max Red


Hi, how can I recover the content of my page deleted for copyright violation?

Star Max Red (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Max Red: For legal reasons, we're generally not able to restore pages that contain copyright violations. I'd recommend starting afresh: find a few reliable sources about the topic, and summarize what they say in your own words. You might find this introduction to writing articles helpful. Let me know if you have any more questions! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:51, 3 August 2021 review of submission by Bwmdjeff


In the last day multiple notable and good sources have released articles on Chandler, so I believe that now Chandler is notable and this article should be re-reviewed. Bwmdjeff (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Bwmdjeff (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:10:07, 3 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Noaghebreab


Hi, my submission has been declined because it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. It is unclear to me whether this means the current references are not reliable. If so which references are these? Or whether it means some of the text is not supported by sources at all (despite the 25 references)? If so which text? I am happy to add references or adapt the text where needed, but need some help I guess to identify where. --Noaghebreab (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Noaghebreab (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article (Rejected)

Hi! I've made a draft here: Draft:Environmental Sampling Techniques which was declined. I understand that the reviewer thinks it lacks reliable sources, which I understand and agree with, but the page is just meant to be a nice link between lots of articles on wikipedia that are of the same topic but that don't link to one another. The draft came about because I was trying to look up various sampling techniques myself to see if there is a more appropriate one for my investigation, but all the sampling techniques I looked up didn't connect to one another in the "See Also" sections. Hence, I thought it would be a good idea to create a page to allow users like myself have a page where these pages of the same topic are sort of "indexed". So the point of the page isn't really to give new information, so surely it doesn't need sources? All it is meant to do is act as a link to other pages and show those who are curious some of the others techniques used. Should I do something else instead? Many thanks, --EcheveriaJ (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EcheveriaJ, It might be viable if you reformat it to a list article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:25:55, 3 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Docsville


Hello, hope all is well. I am trying to submit an article successfully about filmmaker Lawrence Elman, however I keep running into issues in the reviewing process. My latest comment from Wikipedia is as follows: As previously, please remove external links from the content and references need to be correctly formatted per WP:REFB.

While that details what issues are in my submission, I don't really understand how to change them, and I am not entirely sure what Wikipedia is asking for that is different from what I have submitted. I thought my references were properly formatted? What external links from content do I need to remove? I would love a bit more clarification on the matter. Thank you!

Docsville (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Docsville: I made some improvements in format and content. You're still a bit away from this being accepted. If you had better sources for his work, and more profiles about him, rather than just including sources where his name is listed along with others in the credits of film reviews, that would do the trick. For example, there's almost no information about him in the sources. If you knew nothing about him and read the sources only, would you be able to create a decent article? Where did he grow up? What's his background? Profile media coverage is a sign of notability. Also, you'll want to change your user name. It can't be the name of a company related to the subject. See Wikipedia:Username policy#Promotional names. Best to abandon it and start fresh with a new one. And lastly, see WP:COI to make the proper disclosures on your new user talk page. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:25:15, 3 August 2021 review of submission by John Patrick Harris


John Patrick Harris (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Patrick Harris: The sourcing you used for your article doesn't demonstrate notability. It is just press releases. You need independent media coverage. See WP:RS and WP:NBLP. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:43:58, 3 August 2021 review of draft by Vroom42


Hi Wiki Helpers, My draft article, on the company AKIPS, in my sandbox was not approved by Tol about 5 days ago. I have a feeling that it is mainly because the company is not notable enough; most of the references are the company's own website. My boss (yes, I am being paid to do this as an employee of the company) doesn't understand, because much older sub-standard articles on other software networking companies were passed 10 years ago, that this one is now not acceptable. I doubt with the lack of independent references it will meet the new standards even if if I rewrite it. Any assistance would be gratefully received. Thank you Vroom42 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Vroom42 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vroom42 You must make a formal paid editing declaration on your user page; this is a Terms of Use requirement. Older articles are just that- older- created when standards were very different than they are today. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, we haven't yet gotten around to every article that is currently inappropriate. We only have other editors to rely on in pointing out articles that may not be up to standards. It is true that if there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, it would not merit an article at this time. Feel free to show your boss this message.331dot (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vroom42 and 331dot Added suggestions for changes to the submission. Please read them and make some improvements to the tone and the sourcing. The chances of the draft being accepted will improve. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vroom42 Your boss will need to get used to disappointment if the corp fails WP:NCORP. Bosses need to learn humility. Wikipedia has no interest in what they wish to say about the corporation. We care about what others say in sources that pass WP:42 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely they were "passed 10 years ago". Drafting was in its infancy in 2011, and wasn't made mandatory until February 2018. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

07:18:17, 4 August 2021 review of submission by Michalafeka

I summitted an article that was declined in may. After communications with the reviewer I made the requested changes and resubmitted - at least I think I did. I cannot find any confirmation of the resubmission and have not received any messages.

Michalafeka (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michalafeka If you are referring to the draft I have placed a link to above, you need to click "Resubmit" to actually resubmit it for review. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I thought I did that but I guess I did something wrong. Can you confirm that it has not beeen submitted for re-review?

Michalafeka Yes, it is now submitted. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:57, 4 August 2021 review of submission by Malek Dager124


Malek Dager124 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malek Dager124, you didn’t ask a question but your submission was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:51, 4 August 2021 review of draft by Rakib ul 321


Rakib ul 321 (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rakib ul 321 You don't ask a question. You have submitted your draft for review, but it will almost certainly be rejected as you admit there is no information out there. A subject must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:07, 4 August 2021 review of submission by Kanikatutoreye1


I have edited the draft to just state factual information about Vedatya Institute and have provided references for the same.

Kanikatutoreye1 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission was rejected as it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is basically a short advertisement for the subject company. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:27, 4 August 2021 review of submission by Kieran375

Ask for advice please Kieran375 (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran375, Your submission was rejected, meaning it cannot be resubmitted. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission was rejected due to a lack of reliable sources. IDMB is not a reliable source. Also a lack of WP:SIGCOV in sources also is an issue. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:14:10, 4 August 2021 review of submission by Menu maharaj


Menu maharaj (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not ask a question, but the draft has been rejected, which means that it should not be submitted again. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

01:16:39, 5 August 2021 review of draft by MarkVanDannyBilly


I am wondering if I can find help with my draft for finding Japanese pages that have significant coverage of Gachimuchi Pants Wrestling. I submitted my draft again. The lead section could use some work. Thanks. MarkVanDannyBilly (talk) MarkVanDannyBilly (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:05:07, 5 August 2021 review of draft by JoeMOTHERRR


JoeMOTHERRR (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:07:29, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Sharmaji1


Sharmaji1 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:33, 5 August 2021 review of draft by Fiona A. White


Hi Dan Arndt,

I am surprised to receive your email that I constructed my own biography/wiki page and therefore it has been deleted. To be clear I did not create this page but clearly a colleague and/or collaborator has. They may have used my name and email to create the article...I assume....as they may not be familiar with and or do not know how to operate the Wikipedia interface. How can this be rectified? Do they need to log in as themselves with their own email? Please clarify this and I will relay the information to my colleague to rectify (who most likely has put a lot of effort into creating the article and will no want their hard work deleted. In the meantime please, do not delete their work.

regards,

Prof. Fiona White

Fiona A. White (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona A. White This draft was created by your account on February 17th, this is logged in the edit history. Are you saying that someone else operated your account? 331dot (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:02, 5 August 2021 review of submission by ScContributor0

Hello, Resubmitting this since there was no response to my last post from 29 July. Please re-review this submission.

Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia based on Notability guidelines for organizations and companies. Here is some significant coverage by prominent national publications about the company and its products:

Financial Express - https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/immensa-wi-fi-led-bulb-smart-lighting-for-smart-homes/2224249/ Outlook Business - https://www.outlookbusiness.com/markets/feature/crompton-greaves-consumer-electricals-has-been-doing-well-but-there-is-a-tightrope-walk-ahead-5981 Business Today - https://www.businesstoday.in/technology/news/story/amid-rising-demands-air-coolers-become-feature-rich-296263-2021-05-17 CNBC TV18 - https://www.cnbctv18.com/videos/business/companies/have-lined-up-medium-term-plans-for-led-production-crompton-greaves-consumer-7705401.htm HBL - https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/crompton-bets-on-premium-fans-to-sustain-sales-market-share/article23661845.ece

ScContributor0 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:57, 5 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by TomFlynn1955


Hi I am asking for clarification about problems in getting an article (on The Canadian Theological Society) that I have written put online.

The 'reviewing editors' have claimed that "There are still no independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, which is needed to establish notability.... Also, many statements are unsupported by referencing."

First, I respectfully submit that this is simply not true. The revised entry provides references to at least 8 different sources (websites, books, newspapers), independent of the Society, including references to The Canadian Encyclopedia

Second, when I compare the article with other scholarly societies (e.g., American Philosophical Association, Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, American Academy of Religion, Canadian Society for the Study of Religion, American Theological Society, Canadian Society of Soil Science, the Canadian Philosophical Association ) it is at least as substantive, notable, and referenced.

The Canadian Theological Society is not a vanity project, or a personal hobbyhorse, or whatever. It is a major scholarly society in Canada with an international outreach.

I would respectfully ask an editor, knowledgeable of academic societies, to kindly advise me how the entry provided does not meet the standard of the societies that already appear on Wikipedia.

Many thanks

Tom TomFlynn1955 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:04, 5 August 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:B:F005:65D1:548C:2060:90AE


2405:201:B:F005:65D1:548C:2060:90AE (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1037284451"