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 Blogs19 (talk | contribs) at 11:39, 8 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


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. Can you help me improve a Nico Nico Douga video series and subculture that I enjoy? The lead section could use some work. Thanks. MarkVanDannyBilly (talk) MarkVanDannyBilly (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Japan or WP:WikiProject Professional Wrestling are your best bets for source hunting for puroresu articles. Bear in mind that professional wrestling - puroresu included - is under sanctions. is your best bet here. Teach me to actually read the page... —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

Draft deleted as vandalism, request moot. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

This edit is the only one that this account has made. Can you please provide a link to the draft in question? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:41, 6 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]

TomFlynn1955 You have sources for specific pieces of information, that confirm the existence of this organization, what it does, and its leadership; that's not actually what establishes that this organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. We are looking for independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this organization, writing in depth about it. Not every organization merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. It depends on the sources. Please read Your First Article.
Please see other stuff exists. I have not examined the other articles you mention, but it could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Article standards have also changed over the life of Wikipedia, so what was once acceptable may be no longer. If you have an association with this organization, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TomFlynn1955: American Philosophical Society's first edit was in November 2004, Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric's in October 2008, American Academy of Religion's also in November 2004, and the Canadian Philosophical Association's in September 2009. All of these predate the modern drafting process (2011). The remainder were created directly in mainspace and never drafted, as drafting would not be mandatory until 2018. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:17, 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]

You don't ask a question, and your IP address does not have any contributions other than to this page. If you have an account, remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:57, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Gfisk86


Hello, I'm trying to get the messages at the top of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Strazynski) removed. I'm currently going through the article to remove advertisement-like language to satisfy the first message. For the second message, I have been a paid contributor to Robbie Strazynski's Cardplayer Lifestyle publication in the past, but I was not paid to write this article. Please let me know what I can do to get the second message removed. Gfisk86 (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Ableman

This is not the place to ask about tags on existing articles. The proper venue for that is the article talk page. (And the fact you're paid for things unrelated to the Wikipedia article is immaterial; the fact remains that there is or was an employee/employer relationship between you and the subject.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:09, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Faye Samsaman

Hi, can anyone assist me in creating a page? I've been declined a lot of times. I appreciate all your help. Thank you. Faye Samsaman (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:07, 5 August 2021 review of submission by Carrabre


Carrabre (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Carrabre[reply]

Hey! i'm not sure why Presearch isn't viewed as notable enough to have a wikipedia page... There are projects like Yacy which have much lower usage/coverage in the news that are published on wikipedia. There are also competing services like Brave which has been published. If there are specific things in here that seem like advertising, please help me remove them/rework them so that it doesn't come across as such, if this is the main reason. DuckDuckGo Qwant & ecosia, with the latter two being of similar size to Presearch, all also have pages.


Carrabre (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carrabre Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too; competitors meriting articles does not mean that Presearch does too. Each article or draft article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply have not been dealt with yet.
A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company and what it does- that what your draft does. Please review Your First Article.
If you work for Presearch, you must make a Terms of Use-required paid editing declaration; please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrabre: Yacy's first edit was in July 2005. The drafting process didn't exist until 2011 and wasn't made mandatory until 2018. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carrabre (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Carrabre[reply]

ahh thanks for explaining the backdrop on wikipedia... Didn't know that you've ramped up the threshold on article submissions in the past couple years. I believe i have disclosed the COI within the draft. Appreciate the feedback though and will work to make it better!

@Carrabre: Please make a declaration on your user page(click your username in red) so it's clear to all. Thanks 331dot (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:01:08, 5 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Samke1315


I've had two reviewers reject my draft and they both said it fails WP:NNEWSPAPER. However, this is the wrong notability guideline to follow. The correct one is WP:NMEDIA. Under the "Subject-specific notability" section of WP:NMEDIA, you can see it lists five criteria for notability. My draft does in fact meet multiple of those factors listed for the notability requirement. Could someone please review this and advise what steps I should take once I resubmit it for review?

Samke1315 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samke1315 The first line of NMEDIA is "This page is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines.". 331dot (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot The first paragraph of WP:NNEWSPAPER also says "This is not an official policy or an official guideline of Wikipedia." So why is this being cited in a draft rejection by these reviewers? If they are going to take into account WP:NNEWSPAPER, they should also be reviewing WP:NMEDIA as well, since it is an extension of WP:NNEWSPAPER that provides further clarification on certain topics. What do you propose be done regarding this? --Samke1315 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can ask the reviewer directly why they cite something that is not a notability guideline. In looking at the draft, I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. The draft just tells of the existence of the publication and that other outlets quote them; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thanks for the explanation. I have reached out to the reviewer but they haven't responded. Also, I believe WP:NWEB that you linked above is the wrong notability subject. I believe since it is a newspaper, the correct one would be WP:NMEDIA that I linked earlier. The web notability guide you linked above is more so for websites in general, whereas WP:NMEDIA is specifically for newspapers. I think it's also important to note that with newspapers, there isn't always a ton of primary sources on the organizations themselves. This is explained in the "Why separate criteria" section on WP:NMEDIA. "Many of the reliable sources used on Wikipedia come from the media, especially about current topics. However, the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition."" For example, see this Wikipedia page on the Pekin Daily Times. It has one reference and one external link and it was approved. There are many examples like this in particular for newspapers due to the subject-specific notability of them. Samke1315 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samke1315: To be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article, a newspaper must meet the general notability guideline, or arguably, if a web-only newspaper, WP:NWEB. There have been attempts to define subject-specific notability guidelines for newspapers, for the reasons you alluded to. They have resulted in the informal essays WP:NMEDIA and WP:NNEWSPAPER, but not in agreed on guidelines.
It may be unrealistic to think that an online newspaper with three employees and less than a decade of history would be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia.
  • There isn't significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • It hasn't received a well-known and significant award or honor.
  • It doesn't have a significant history and hasn't served a historic purpose.
  • It doesn't represent an undeserved ethnic or other non-trivial niche market.
  • It hasn't made significant impact in the field of news reporting.
  • It hasn't been used as a citation in academic or scholarly works on a regular or significant basis.
  • It has been shown to be quoted by other reliable sources, and those sources may consider it authoritative for police blotter type reporting within the two counties, but two examples in each of two years where their reporting has been briefly quoted is not convincing evidence that they are worthy of note.
Wikipedia is looking for articles about newspapers closer to the Illustrated Daily News end of the spectrum of significance.
The problem with comparing a draft to an existing article is that Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they have been "approved". It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Samke1315: As noted very well by Worldbruce, that an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone. It is not required to use the Articles for Creation process to create an article. (though not using it runs the risk of it being tagged as problematic or nominated for deletion) I have marked Pekin Daily Times with a maintenance template that it is possibly not notable and needs sources. We can only address the problematic articles that we know about. If you want to pitch in and help, feel free to help identify other problematic articles for possible action. You could also work to have the proposed guidelines made into actual guidelines- but even if you did that, I'm not sure they would apply to this online newspaper. 331dot (talk) 07:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot and Worldbruce Thank you both for your detail explanations. That was very informative. I think I may have to switch the category type from newspaper to something else that fits it better as it is a digital-only newspaper. I will also look to add some of those things you listed in the bullet points like awards and other reliable sources. Samke1315 (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

06:32:45, 6 August 2021 review of submission by Shekhar Aman

I have removed all the external links. I have kept all the point as neutral. Also, I have mentioned all the valid sources. Shekhar Aman (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can make a subject notable. Your submission was rejected out of a lack of notability. It still has many issues, even after improvement. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:08, 6 August 2021 review of draft by Pompancake


I was wondering about the requirement of notability. I tried to create an article about the murder of Lorraine Cox in Exeter, UK. It was declined with the response of "NCrime". I was wanted to create a page to inform others of her violent death in the aftermath of Sarah Everard. There were many vigils around the country in response to her death and in the city of Exeter there was a large number of people also mourning Lorraine Cox. Is notability just based on how publicised the death is? Or is it due to the status of the murderer i.e the number of people they kill? I can't seem to find a definition of what NCrime means specifically. Sorry if someone has responded to me before I cannot find it.

Pompancake (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC) Pompancake (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

”NCRIME” refers to WP:NCRIME. Perhaps the reviewer may have explained it better. Notability has to do with the coverage in sources, which is ok in this article. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:09, 6 August 2021 review of submission by AlamaHamidAksar


AlamaHamidAksar (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You didn’t ask a question but your submission was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Only a few months have passed since deletion and the submission still fails WP:GNG and is still written relatively promotionally. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:40, 6 August 2021 review of draft by Enrico Bartoccioni


To. Mr. Paul W

Elisabetta Campus ".....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)......"

Dear Sir, this article about Elisabetta Campus has already been published in the Italian version of Wikipedia. So the sources have already been verified by your colleagues. However, I am available to translate them for you as well. In this link there is the italian version: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabetta_Campus

The problem is that I have not been able to use your translation systems and your program did not allow me because I had no experience.

The sources refer to the achivistic superintendency of Umbria, which is a state institution.

I can certainly modify the article according to your instructions, if you agree with the points above.

Thank you for your work

Enrico Bartoccioni--Enrico Bartoccioni (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Enrico Bartoccioni (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Enrico Bartoccioni: Whether or not it.wp accepted the sources or not is immaterial, as en.wp and it.wp are different projects which set their own standards for sourcing, and as far as living people go en.wp is one of the stricter ones. I suggest reading en.wp's sourcing policies, not least the two I linked, as opposed to judging the article by it.wp's. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:14:01, 6 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kunal0702


Thank you so much for your quick review, but I'm a little bit disappointed here because I followed all rules and mentioned all reputed sources like LinkedIn. so as you mentioned, "Current sources are too reliant upon press releases" may I know this article sources are eligible, which is already approved by the Wikipedia team? "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumio"

Kunal0702 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuna10702: It wasn't "approved by (reviewers)". LinkedIn is not acceptable as a source, the Yahoo Finance article is marked as coming from Cision/PR Newswire, and PRNAsia is likewise attributed to Cision/PR Newswire. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

06:56:30, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Mr. Hailo


Mr. Hailo (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This article is the translated version from the german article of Oscar Leonardo Franco Vivas. He is an well known artist in Colombia and the informations standing in the article are coming directly from Oscar Franco.

German article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Leonardo_Franco_Vivas


Mr. Hailo (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

de.wp and en.wp are separate projects with separate standards, and one standard en.wp has that de.wp does not is WP:Biographies of living people. Completely unsourced biographies about living people are not only grossly unacceptable here, but at risk for deletion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:30, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Shoki2021


Shoki2021 (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoki2021 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and deleted as blatant promotion and a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:30, 7 August 2021 review of draft by Elisafrag


Elisafrag (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elisafrag You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, 331dot It took a long week for me to compile all the information on my recent draft that I submitted for approval but it got rejected. The article was about Anthony B. Catachanas a well-known personality in the UK investment market back in the 1920s his father and grandfather have also contributed to the Greek community a lot which I am preparing an article it will take around a month more to publish about his father. I have used all the authentic resources in the article but still the article of Anthony B. Catachanas ‎is been rejected I would like you to review the article again and suggest me the best thing to do with the artcile to get this published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisafrag (talk • contribs)

Elisafrag The draft is sourced almost completely to press release-type articles or sources that hardly mention Mr. Catachanas, if they mention him at all. A person merits a Wikipedia article if they receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. He himself needs to get coverage, not just things he is associated with.
If you work for Mr. Catachanas or are otherwise associated with him, you must review paid editing and conflict of interest for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:34, 7 August 2021 review of submission by FlowerMoon593


Hi, I recently sought advice via the live help chat. I have made all changes advised...would it be possible to request a re-review please? Much appreciated.

FlowerMoon593 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlowerMoon593 You will need to ask the reviewer that rejected the draft directly, describing the new information you have. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:55, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Brshipley


I recently submitted an article on a relatively new World Heritage site in Greenland that contains several distinct and important archeological locations, including the site on Nipisat Island. It was rejected because Nipisat Island currently has the infobox of the entire World Heritage Site, and it was suggested that I simply include the information in my draft into the Nipisat Island page. While I somewhat agree that the draft I wrote needed more content (and have added more information since the earlier submission), I disagree that it should be merged with Nipisat Island, given that 6 out of the 7 archeological sites protected by the World Heritage Site are not, in fact, on Nipisat Island. In my opinion, that would be somewhat misleading, similar to not including the Yellowstone National Park article because there exists an article on any one of the many geysers within the park. Is there a way I can resubmit the draft without having to merge it with Nipisat Island, as the reviewer's comments suggest I do? Thank you! Brshipley (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brshipley Start by having this conversation with the reviewer who suggested the merge FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:27, 7 August 2021 review of submission by Supermann


Nobody has since chimed in on the new edits related to the actor's stage performance and notability. The discussion was archived without any response. Not sure if this was intentional snub or what. Thanks.

Supermann (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supermann The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have new information that establishes notability that the reviewer did not consider, you will need to approach them directly. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

11:22:47, 8 August 2021 review of submission by Ryan18088

i dont know how to make my own wiki better so i just did the best that i can

Ryan18088 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:39:03, 8 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Blogs19



Blogs19 (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:36, 8 August 2021 review of submission by Blogs19


Blogs19 (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1037736632"