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 Techprecious (talk | contribs) at 12:28, 18 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 11

07:51:54, 11 August 2021 review of draft by 193.116.196.59


My submitted article keeps getting rejected and I don't know why. 193.116.196.59 (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept essays. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:15:11, 11 August 2021 review of draft by RuthIrl


Can I please ask for help identifying the main areas of issue with Women in Computing Europe? I tried hard to follow the format of an existing Wikipedia page which is not mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing_in_Canada

Points are backed up referenced material so I don't see where my personal opinion came in. I had thought that I did not include any opinion. I am not arguing, I just would appreciate help in identifying the issues so that I can correct them. I would like to get the page up in the best form it can take.

Thank you for reviewing the work.

RuthIrl (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:36:46, 11 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 83.248.133.222


Hello, I am trying to create this new article here, but it got refused now for the third time because of "not adequately supported by reliable sources": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kamo_River_(Russia)

The article has in fact two linked references to Russian web pages where the information can be verified. There are also Wikipedia articles in six other languages already about the exact same Kamo river with pretty much the same basic information, see: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1174185

There is even a map (used in another article before) showing the exact location of the river. What other "reliable sources" should be added so that the article can be accepted? I am starting to get tired of this process.

83.248.133.222 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed and accepted the article. For named geographic features such as rivers, mountains, lakes, etc. proof of existence is enough. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:02:48, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Hearvox


Mystified by the Wikipedia new-article submission review process. Submitted an extensively sourced draft on Headwaters Economics, a U.S., nonprofit, nonpartisan research firm, which has done pioneering work in wildfire/WUI and the value of public lands.

First, I was inaccurately accused of being paid or having a financial connection with the article's subject, then that the article lacked independently verifiable sources, even tho each sentence was a statement of fact and most were footnoted with links to major national news and academic outlets that use HE research.

Now, even tho the article is mostly unchanged, the financial connection and lack of sourcing objections have been dropped. But the problem is now that HE is not of enough consequence to justify a Wikipedia entry. This cannot be true when nearly every major news outlet has relied on HE research for their articles: NY Times, WaPo, NPR, etc. If the major media publications which use HE research are notable, then the research itself and the organization which produces it must also be notable. I'm done pursuing this project/draft. Just wanted to inform the Wiki community you may have a reviewing issue.

Other than that, thanks so much for all your work.

Hearvox (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:41, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Walking Weird Studios


Can I get help finding good sources for my page? Walking Weird Studios (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking Weird Studios: A good way to find reliable sources is to ask a librarian. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Walking Weird Studios: A quick search of Google for YouTuber “Shnobbs” turns up zero reliable independent sources, I fear you are wasting your time trying to create an article on them. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:01, 11 August 2021 review of draft by Bollinmoor


Hello. I created a draft of an article about a Ukrainian scientist. But there are not enough sources. I found encyclopedias in the library. Can these articles be used? Link to file hosting
https://fex.net/ru/s/m1t79za
I also found Nazarenko's books and newspaper articles. Do I need to add them as proof of his work?

thank you for your help and advice


Bollinmoor (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:36:57, 11 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jms19961996


Hello. I am having trouble with the article on William Rothman that I wrote, which recently received its third rejection. My issue is that the feedback in the most recent review seems to directly contradict some of the opinions of a previous reviewer, which leaves me stuck as to how to proceed with resubmitting it. I also found the general tone and conduct of the most recent reviewer to be quite unprofessional and inappropriate; not to mention the lack of detail or specificity in their overall review. It seems as if they just did not like or care for the article at all, despite the efforts I put into rectifying the issues raised by the previous reviewer(s), none of whom raised the question of notability. I was under the impression the article was pretty close to being published until the most recent review, which has left me wondering what to do next. Please advise. Thanks. Jms19961996 (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jms19961996: You need more reliable sources about him or his books. See WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:06, 11 August 2021 review of submission by Ashokreddy

Hi - this is a genuine edition, am trying for a long time. This movie is significant in Krishna (Telugu actor) career, and I posted all the links I could find. Telugu movies dont have too many supporting links to add. I have even added Amazon links for this movie's music. Not sure what else I can do to reconsider this page. Please advise. Ashokreddy (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashokreddy: Sorry, but there are not enough independent sources to show that the film is notable. Without more sources, the draft will not be approved. Amazon and IMDB are not considered suitable to show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:07, 11 August 2021 review of draft by HalfMoonWiki


New article: Draft:StormForge I noticed this new article was declined, even before I had finished editing 8-)

This article is about the software company http://www.stormforge.io

The reason given for rejection is that the references were not sufficiently independent, could you comment on that before I continue editing?

More:

  • Most of the references were from well-known publications such as Forbes, CRN, TechRepublic and similar.
  • I discovered that four references were re-used, was that a primary reason? I can remove duplicates if preferred
  • I also plan to add an Infobox with company logo and founders, would that assist in approval?


HalfMoonWiki (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HalfMoonWiki. BizJournals is an independent, reliable, secondary source containing significant coverage. The rest, not so much. Forbes.com/sites by contributors rather than staff are not the same as Forbes magazine. They are blogs, so not reliable sources for facts. Indeed, in my experience they're strong contra-indicators of notability. Perhaps only hopelessly non-notable companies pay to be blogged about there. TechCrunch appears to be a regurgitated press release, so not independent. Container Journal, CRN, and TechRepublic are trade rags, a type of publication specifically excluded by WP:NCORP from those that help demonstrate notability. Two of them, moreover, are "best of", "top 100" or similar lists, also excluded by WP:NCORP, making them doubly unsuitable. The presence or absence of an infobox will have zero influence on the fate of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 12

04:13:37, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Brentxphillips


Hi, I'd like help to make my article acceptable for approval and publishing. Can someone point me to a template or something? I'm just trying to publish a very basic article on something that I'm an expert on.

Brentxphillips (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brentxphillips, the best advice I can give is to read the advice for expert editors. We value subject experts particularly for their ability to distinguish between good and less good sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:49:05, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Tiltal


Hello,

We would like to understand what changes need to be made so as to comply with WIKI requirements. We established this page similarly to other company's pages. Please advise.

Best Regards,

Yair Maryanka - CEO



Tiltal (talk) 05:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiltal Note that only a single person should be operating your account. You will need to review the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration. Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. A company merits an article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(and not prompted by the company or based on materials put out by the company), showing how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please see Your First Article for more information.
It could be that the other articles you've seen are also inappropriate. It is possible to get inappropriate content by us; we can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:15:23, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Phoebeowston


I would like to publish this article, what impartial language should I use?

Phoebeowston There is nothing that you can do- as the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, as no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, Phoebeowston, egregious promotion can be fixed by ruthless removal of promotional language. You've started this removal and I now see some hope for the article, so I have changed (my own) "reject" to "decline". However, before you concern yourself with the language, better look for reliable sources that are independent of the gallery. If no such sources can be found, even a seemingly neutral description won't be acceptable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:36:30, 12 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Blmalone


This is my first effort and I am having trouble reading and understanding the status of my submission. These pages are cryptic and I don't see a clear indication of the status of my page, since I made multiple several edits, or the dates of my edit submissions, or a verification that the submission actually uploaded, and confirmation that it is awaiting approval. I am just looking for acknowledgement that the last edit submitted is actually in the que. Blmalone (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blmalone (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blmalone As indicated by the yellow box at the bottom of the draft, you have resubmitted it and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:30, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Giocardillo


I tried publishing a page about a Emilia Fazzalari. It got denied due to references not being sufficient enough. With looking at other biography pages, the references I have provided look like to me they would qualify. Was curious if I could get more specifics on why it was denied and how to make it better


Giocardillo (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giocardillo Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, and with over 6 million articles to look at, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a guide, make sure that they are classified as at least "good" articles(see the talk page for that information) which are the best examples to follow. If you want to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action.
Regarding your question, some sections of your draft are completely unsourced, such as the Personal Life section. (related to that,we don't typically mention the names of children, especially minors, unless they too merit articles) The rest of your sources do not seem appropriate for establishing notability. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The article should not just tell what the person has done in their life. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you have an association with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures, as well as other advice. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8 of your draft's paragraphs have no sources whatsoever, each and every substantive fact requires proper citing to independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:09, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Walking Weird Studios

The page I've been trying to make is a page for a youtube channel called ShnobbsStudios. The name of the owner of this channel is Gabriel Garcia. I need good ways to show that the sources I am using are good ones. Can someone help? Walking Weird Studios (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walking Weird Studios: Greetings. As has been repeatedly pointed out in the comments in your draft, we want to see significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The only source which has been provided has been a link to the subject's own YouTube channel. This is quite obviously not independent, nor is it reliable--we are not concerned with what a subject has to say about itself. I have looked around for any indication whatsoever that anyone unconnected with Garcia or the channel has written about them and did not find anything. Without independent sourcing, there is literally nothing upon which a proper encyclopedia article on the subject can be based. There is nothing at all here to show that Garcia or his oeuvre are notable enough to merit an article here, and therefore I concur with the reviewer's rejection of the draft as not only unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and indeed for any further consideration as such. --Finngall talk 17:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:50, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Sandy Fortingal


How do I lodge a formal complaint against Locomotive207?

Sandy Fortingal

Sandy Fortingal (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Fortingal You should first attempt to talk out any grievance with another user. I assume this has to do with their declining of your draft. Escalating it to another forum means that your actions will be examined as well. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have too many zealots stalking your platform being officious, obstructive and unhelpful. Who polices these people? Do they get any training? They create a negative and dispiriting environment for contributors.

Sandy

(edit conflict) Note that this appears to be regarding Locomotive207's decline of Draft:Laurence Oliphant, 7th Laird of Gask, and that OP has already conversed with them on their talk page. --Finngall talk 17:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Fortingal, would you mind actually submitting the draft so that I can re-review it?--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 19:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandy Fortingal: Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and there are a number of community-based means to "police" those who do not follow policies and guidelines, but I checked around and didn't see anything "officious, obstructive, [or] unhelpful" directed toward you, merely reasonable attempts at communication and standard templated notices. If there is anything I missed which you see as actionable, please provide specifics (with diffs), but otherwise I would advise you to assume good faith of your fellow editors and not take anything too personally. --Finngall talk 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:00, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Kitanago

I would like to submit for consideration this article which has been transferred to the draft. I would like to know what I need to fix and if someone can help me please! Kitanago (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have very little interest in what the founder says about his company, only what independent reliable sources have reported. Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:04, 12 August 2021 review of submission by Ashokreddy

Does giving Youtube link for the movie help publishing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NHCgMTDnjw

Ashokreddy (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:39, 12 August 2021 review of draft by Racer235


I was just wondering how I make my article in a more encyclopaedic tone. What words shouldn’t be used?


Racer235 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, “it looks majestic” “distinctive,” “unpleasant rubble” “very unpleasant,”a lot going on” “we reach a flat saddle” are not appropriate. Theroadislong (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

07:15:00, 13 August 2021 review of draft by Jimmyjrg


I would like help with this article on Brian Wise. He is notable as editor of Rhythms Magazine - one of the last printed music magazines in Australia - and for his long running radio show. This year he was awarded an OAM for his service to broadcast media, and I believe this alone should be merit for an article.

While many of the sources are firsthand, I think there are enough secondhand mixed in that shows Brian Wise is known outside of his own circle. --Jimmyjrg (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmyjrg (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:53, 13 August 2021 review of draft by Valeria.Djukic


Dear help desk, I am trying to improve this draft article and address the reported concern: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.'

I have added additional sources and reference, and working on citing the bibliography to the fullest possible extent. Apart from that, how should I deal with the biography part, which is most of the text? Most of it can be found in the respective biography book - do I need to reference it multiple times or once is enough?

Valeria.Djukic (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, remove all the content that is un-sourced and make the article much shorter. (Note: I am not an admin. This is just a suggestion.)Alice Jason (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason You don't have to be an administrator to participate here, so it's unnecessary to tell people that you aren't one. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:06, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Rob waring

The article has been improved and issues have since been fixed.

Rob waring (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No noticeable improvement? The Daily Mail and Facebook are not reliable sources either. Theroadislong (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:47, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Alice Jason


I would like to ask a different admin to review this, then the admin that declined it, because this article has significant coverage from reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. I feel the reviewer did not do a proper review and did not analyze the available sources.  In particular check San Diego Tribune, Techcrunch, Fast Company and San Diego Business Journal. After the decline I have also added a new Book Source at #19 (Agile Project Management: The Complete Guide for Beginners) and BLOOMBERG. Please review my citation analysis below and let me know if you do not agree that this article meets the notability guidelines. (Disclosure: I am a paid editor, but that should not count against notability guidelines. I feel I am being given a hard time, just because I am a paid editor!)

Source analysis
1) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2021-06-21/san-diegos-newest-tech-unicorn-grabs-east-village-high-rise-next-to-petco-park 
-in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is reliable   .  We have 3 references from this site, so we should only count one. RATING: EXCELLENT
2) https://social.techcrunch.com/2020/06/24/productivity-platform-clickup-raises-35-million-from-craft-ventures/    
- in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is super notable and reliable   .   RATING: EXCELLENT
3) https://charitydigital.org.uk/topics/topics/the-best-project-management-software-in-2021-8909 
- Not too in-depth but has more than 2 paragraphs about them. Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
4)https://project-management.com/pros-and-cons-of-using-clickup/ 
- In-depth - Publication not well known . It is a review website. RATING: AVERAGE
5) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-12-15/clickup-raises-100m-as-venture-capital-continues-to-flow-to-local-startups 
- in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is reliable  .  This is a duplicate site reference, so we will not count it. RATING: EXCELLENT, but DO NOT COUNT.
6) https://thesiliconreview.com/magazine/profile/clickup-is-the-future-of-workplace-productivity 
- This is an interview, so the interview part is not primary, however, there are more than 2 paragraphs of intro and bio about the company written by the publication, which is acceptable. I am not sure if this Publication is reliable    .  RATING: AVERAGE
7) https://www.fastcompany.com/90636414/after-four-near-death-experiences-this-billion-dollar-startup-ceo-has-no-more-time-to-waste 
-in-depth and has a bio of the company, Publication is super notable and reliable .  RATING: EXCELLENT
8) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/27/style/family-calendar.html 
- It's a mention, not in-depth. Publication is super notable and reliable .  RATING: AVERAGE
9) https://moderncto.io/270-alex-yurkowski-cto-co-founder-at-clickup/ 
- in-depth. Publication not well known.  RATING: AVERAGE
10) https://www.gadgetsnow.com/featured/free-tools-to-get-your-home-business-up-and-running/articleshow/77478904.cms 
- in-depth (long paragraph) . Publication not well known.   RATING: AVERAGE
11)  https://diginomica.com/one-app-replace-them-all-clickups-ceo-future-productivity-and-how-clickup-addresses-proliferation - In-Depth -This is part interview and part review by the author. The interview part is not acceptable but there are over 10 paragraphs of in-depth analysis of the software by the author. Publication is not well known.  RATING: AVERAGE
12) https://www.saasmag.com/zeb-evans-of-clickup-on-optimizing-productivity/ 
- Interview, but has 2 paragraphs of info. Publication is reliable  and has hard copies.   RATING: AVERAGE
13) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/apr/07/san-diego-padres-partners-clickup/ (San Diego Business Journal) 
- Somewhat in-depth. Article not too long, and 2 paragraphs are quotes.Publication is super notable, reliable  and has hard copy. We have two references from this site (See #17), so we will only count the second one since it's more in-depth. RATING: ABOVE AVERAGE - DO NOT COUNT
14) https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2020-06-26/san-diego-start-up-clickup-raises-35-million-for-software-that-helps-with-remote-work
in-depth , Publication is reliable .  This is a third site reference (See #1 and 5), so we will not count it. RATING: EXCELLENT, but DO NOT COUNT.
15) https://www.socaltech.com/clickup_taps_buzzfeed_cheddar_exec_as_creative_head/s-0080731.html
- Not in-depth. Publication not well known. RATING: BELOW AVERAGE
16)https://tech.co/news/clickup-email-clickapp-feature 
- in-depth , Publication is not well known. There is another article from this site at #22 which we will not count. RATING: AVERAGE
17) https://www.sdbj.com/news/2021/jan/05/clickup-becomes-san-diegos-latest-unicorn/ (San Diego Business Journal) 
- Very in-depth .Publication is super notable, reliable  and has hard copy. We have two references from this site, so we will only count this one since it's more in-depth. RATING: EXCELLENT
18) https://www.thedrum.com/news/2021/08/03/ad-the-day-clickup-chad-lindberg-highlight-the-awkwardness-going-back-work 
-  in-depth , Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
19) Caldwell, Greg (2021-01-29). Agile Project Management: The Complete Guide for Beginners https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SZoXEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT31&dq=clickup&hl=en&redir_esc=y
- in-depth , It's from a published book so it is reliable . RATING: EXCELLENT
20) https://siliconangle.com/2020/12/15/productivity-platform-startup-clickup-raises-100m-1b-unicorn-valuation/ 
-in-depth , while its news about  raising funds, it also has in-depth info about the company, Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
21) https://www.business.com/articles/free-time-tracking-applications/
-  somewhat in-depth , it's comparing several apps, but more than enough info on Clickup to be considered somewhat in-depth. Publication is reliable . RATING: ABOVE AVERAGE
22) https://dzone.com/articles/what-does-a-project-manager-do-on-a-daily-basis-th
-in-depth, comparison of several apps. Publication is not well known. RATING: AVERAGE
23) https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-review
-in-depth, Has details about app and pricing. We will not count this one since its the second article from tech.co (See #16). RATING: AVERAGE - DO NOT COUNT
24) https://thetechtribune.com/10-best-tech-startups-in-san-diego/
-Not in-depth, but it says they are one of the best startups in Silicon Valley. Publication not well known. RATING: BELOW AVERAGE
25) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round
In-depth and publication is super notable and reliable. RATING: EXCELLENT

Alice Jason (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Jason Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason Shopping around for a different reviewer will not make a difference, as the reviewer was correct. The sources do not establish notability because they are announcements of routine business activities or reviews of the company's products, not the company itself. If you've accepted payment already(as you declared) I'd suggest that you return the money, as the rejection means the draft will not be considered further. I'm also curious as to how potential clients find you, as you say you don't advertise on a website, but it's not necessary for you to answer that. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@(331dot) Please review the sources in detail and respond to me how the sources that I have specified as EXCELLENT fail to meet the guidelines. Even tough they are news, they contain in detail company info and bio. Fast Company, TechCrunch, San Diego Tribune, Book coverage, etc there are over 20 sources. I agree not all in-depth and some news, but there is more than enough here to meet WP:GNG. Not only some of these articles are in-depth but they are also from notable and reliable publications. As far as how they found me, it was a referral from an agency that I work with.23.240.192.112 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the top table here:
I suggest you swot up on WP:CORPDEPTH, as a lot of your "EXCELLENT" sources are run-of-the-mill business coverage that would have been reported on as a matter of course. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I assume you are Alice Jason. A publication being reliable does not automatically mean everything it publishes is acceptable as a source. It depends on the actual text being cited. Taking some in order:
1) is an announcement of the company's expansion into a new building- that is a routine business activity.
2) is an announcement of the company's raising of capital, another routine business activity.
3) is a description of one of the company's products in comparison to others in its field. Nothing about the company itself.
4) is another description of the company's product.
5) is another announcement of the company's raising of capital.
6) you already say is mostly an interview; the rest pretty much just says a lot of people have used the company's products during the pandemic. Not significant coverage.
7) is mostly another interview.
8) I cannot read through the NYT paywall but before it kicked in it seemed to have little to do with the company itself.
9) is another interview.
10) is another desription of the company's product and not the company itself.
11) you concede is an interview plus analysis of the software- not the company itself.
12) you concede is an interview. There is little mention of the company elsewhere.
13) is another announcement of a routine business transaction(that the San Diego Padres hired the company)
14) yet another announcement of the raising of capital.
15) is an announcement of a hiring, a routine business activity.
I think I've gone through enough of them. The point is that you have a lot of poor quality sources; what is preferred are fewer high-quality sources with significant coverage of the company itself, not just its products. It is possible for the products to merit an article while the company that produces them does not. Please read Your First Article and the notability guidelines for companies, but as the draft was rejected, there is nothing more you can do here for the time being. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot and @Jéské Couriano in your opinions how many more high-quality sources with significant coverage is needed? Alice Jason (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason I will be frank with you- and I apologize. There is no point in further work on this right now, and my suggestion is that you abandon this and move on to something else. Maybe in six months or so the situation will change and you can start fresh only summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage, but I see little chance of success now. There is nothing wrong with this, as not every company merits an article, even in the same field. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask is that I found at least 10 more news stories and a few are real good. Typically how many in-depth articles are good in your option? From what I have seen in past cases, most Admins consider 2-3 good in-depth news stories plus several passing mentions or not so in-depth as good enough. What is your option in this? Should I send you the additional articles for review?? What really would make this page qualify? that is my question. Alice Jason (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason Again, reviewers are not necessarily administrators. Most reviewers aren't, in fact. I get that you are being paid and so you are extra motivated to get this put into article space and disregard what I and others are telling you, but Wikipedia isn't concerned with that or any deadlines you have- which is why paid editing is problematic, even if permitted, as the two things are incompatible(your motivation and our goals).
You are correct that most article reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage- sources that have chosen on their own to write about the company itself(not its products) and are not based on any materials put out by the company or interviews with its staff. Completely forget about anything that doesn't have significant coverage for purposes of a submission. Wikipedia is not interested in telling about how companies have raised capital or opened new locations or been hired. In any event, none of this matters for this draft as it has been rejected. Again, rejected. It is not going to be considered in the near future by anyone. You need to move on from this for the time being. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying even if I present to you 10-15 new sources, you would not consider a re-review? Have you done an in-depth Google Search to see if there are any other news about this subject? I would bet that you have not, because if you did, you may have found some of these new sources that I am talking about. There are 30+ pages of Google news results on this company. FYI, I already got paid to submit the page whether it gets accepted or not and I have not promised the client anything. In fact, I told them to expect chance of decline. AT this point I feel I am being given a hard time because I am a paid editor. Why would you not want to look at 10-15 more sources and just straight out reject it??? Alice Jason (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because odds are most, if not all, of those 10-15 more sources are more of the same routine business coverage. Google hits are not a good indicator of notability because only a very small fraction of hits point to sources we can use, and this is doubly so for businesses. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Sounds to me that you already made up your mind and that a paid editor can never provide enough good sources, no matter if they exist. Thanks, I'll move on. Alice Jason (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Jason: Nowhere did I say that or imply it. I'm speaking from experience here; a Google search pulls up far more useless sources than useful ones by virtue of both how Google works and our own sourcing requirements; your job should be to sift through them with an eye to separating the wheat from the chaff, rather than relying on us to do it for you. You are the one who wants the article, after all, and the onus is always on those seeking to add/retain content to provide suitable sources. Do not put words in my muzzle. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time. I rather not provide you anything because you are likely to disagree with anything I provide. If there is another admin here besides the 2 of you that have responded so far, I am willing to send the new citations for review. It is obvious that I am being discriminated against for being a paid editor and no matter what I provide you are going to make it hard for this article to get approved. Alice Jason (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Jason, I have spent some time reviewing the sources provided above and in the article and I entirely agree with the assessment of both Jéské Couriano and 331dot: None of the sources provide significant coverage of the company itself in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. I have also looked for additional sources which would assist in proving notability and have found little of note. To be entirely blunt, I couldn't care less about this company and whether or not the article was created by a paid editor; what I care about is whether an article meets the guidelines on notability, and this one clearly does not. The article has been rightly rejected on two occaisions now to prevent reviewers wasting their time on reviewing it again, and continuing to insist that the subject of the article is notable when a total of six reviewers have assessed that it is not is bordering on disruptive. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Jason: As I said, you being a paid editor is not relevant. I would say the exact same thing whether you were a paid editor or not. 331dot (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alice Jason: A couple days ago I examined what you call your "excellent" sources, with particular emphasis on The San Diego Union-Tribune. I also searched other San Diego news sources, EBSCO, and ProQuest for any independent, reliable sources containing significant coverage. By the time I had finished, two other reviewers had already posted exhaustive analyses. There was nothing to add to what they had already explained, so I didn't comment at the time. My conclusion, however, is the same as everyone but you, the startup clearly is not notable (not suitable for inclusion as a stand alone article in the encyclopedia). --Worldbruce (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:21, 13 August 2021 review of submission by Geo Lightspeed7


Geo Lightspeed7 (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Draft:Christine Handy Hello. I was informed that this page was declined for certain reasons. My question is this: There were a few different examples on the draft. The ones above were sort of practice ones. The refined one was at the very bottom. I’m thinking that it was overlooked at the decision to decline it was based on the one above. If it wasn’t overlooked, is there a way of removing the previous first draft examples from all of it. I now know how to edit without adding more copies of different versions. Thank you for the enlightenment![reply]

Yeah - you can just delete the text. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 14

00:28:55, 14 August 2021 review of submission by 2601:86:400:132C:442C:F41F:D37:45D6


2601:86:400:132C:442C:F41F:D37:45D6 (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:37:12, 14 August 2021 review of submission by Moltenality

06:37:12, 14 August 2021 review of submission by Moltenality Moltenality Talk to me 06:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]



08:53:27, 14 August 2021 review of submission by Thecriclover99


Happy to modify in order to be able to create the page. Please advise what would need to change for it to go through? I tried to base this one off https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman_Chalisa but unsure what changes need to be made in order to have it be submitted.

Thecriclover99 (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:04, 14 August 2021 review of draft by EddieLee101


I have added citations but I would like a list of things to improve this draft. How do I add an image that will abide by the copyright guidelines on wikipedia?

EddieLee101 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieLee101: For living people, Wikipedia only accepts images who have been freely licensed by the copyright holder (most likely the photographer), or which are in the Public domain due to age or simplicity. If there is no image which meets this criterion, and the Subject is not willing to provide one, Wikipedia will not have an image. Also, adding images should not be your main concern right now, as images don't affect the acceptability of a draft. A google search (ref #4) is not regarded as a reliable source, because it is inherently user-, context-, and time-dependent (things you see now might be gone in an hour). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:15, 14 August 2021 review of draft by Ugochukwu75


Please can you tell me the sources I cited on this article which are not reliable sources|? Ugochukwu75 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC) please review the article again and if it has fulfilled the criteria then notify! Moltenality PK 18:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all merely confirm the existence of this company and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 15

00:34:10, 15 August 2021 review of submission by Onepark


Onepark (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 May 2021, the above-mentioned submission to Articles for Creation was not accepted because:

  • The submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.
  • The contributor seems to have a special relationship with the subject person.

On 1 June 2021, I submitted again a new version of Draft:Park Choon-ho by explaining:

  • The subject person, who passed away in 2008, was the prominent scholar and world-famous judge at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), which has been well evidenced by the United Nations documents.
  • The contributor has no special relationship or connections with him.

Until this day, I have no idea that my modified submission of Draft:Park Choon-ho has been properly attended. I'm afraid it would be regarded as useless and finally abandoned by en.Wikipedia. As you may know, ko.Wikipedia has carried the identical content in Korean since December 2020. Onepark (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onepark. On 1 June 2021, you made significant edits to the draft, but you did not submit it for review, so we have taken no action on it. If you are ready for the draft to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button within the large pink box at the top of the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thank you for your kind comment. I did resubmit the draft of 1 June 2021 with minor changes, as advised by you. Onepark (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:07:34, 15 August 2021 review of submission by Itsmrpatrick

SkyTac Investment is quite notable in Mainland China and continuously ranked as Top 10 regarding rate of return among all secondary market-focused investment funds in China. Therefore, I sincerely request to re-review this draft and thank you so much for your help! Itsmrpatrick (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. It appears that the company does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:29:16, 15 August 2021 review of draft by 2409:4061:B:FBCC:2460:2C5A:D816:393E


The draft has been improved with WP:RS and latest TRP ratings are also provided.

2409:4061:B:FBCC:2460:2C5A:D816:393E (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:41, 15 August 2021 review of submission by 2601:183:4581:7BC0:DDD5:A478:1D42:CAF7


Hi, The draft was rejected due to a lack of significant coverage. The person in mention was part of a TV series hosted by Animal Planet, has written numerous medical publications along and in conjunction with others. All have been cited along with various newspaper articles about him. The sources are primary and secondary. I am asking for another review and also feedback on how many other sources and what type of sources are needed.

Thank you.

2601:183:4581:7BC0:DDD5:A478:1D42:CAF7 (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:10, 15 August 2021 review of submission by Skfazall


Skfazall (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>https://ps.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlu_Raheman<ref>

This is part of some cross-wiki spam about the subject: see , commons:File:Fazlu Raheman.jpg and enwiki logs. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 13:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:02, 15 August 2021 review of draft by Afgul


Afgul (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:35, 15 August 2021 review of submission by Afgul


Afgul (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:01, 15 August 2021 review of draft by Wool Bridge


I want to edit a rejected draft but the description section below the title is not editable.

Wool Bridge (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wool Bridge. Draft:Air Ions was declined (which enables improvement and resubmission), not rejected (which does not). If by "description section below the title", you mean the WP:LEAD, it's editable, although unless you have a preference set there won't be an [edit] button for the section, just the Edit tab at the top of the article. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 16

01:47:41, 16 August 2021 review of submission by Wikichyld

Made edits with just objective information and links.

Wikichyld (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:23, 16 August 2021 review of submission by Mukthi Nilayam


Mukthi Nilayam (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Mukthi Nilayam[reply]

Shall I Know The Reason That,Why Are You Declined My Request ?

Because it is WP:SPAM. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:16:41, 16 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ברטוביניו


Hi, I created the article on Gal Yosef, a well known 3d artist who works with some big names, published, won awards, sold over a million dollar of his art and has many articles on him. It seems the delition is unjust and although I reached out to the reviewer I get no answer. I wold like to understand how can this seletion happen and ask the draft to be restored. Can you please help? ברטוביניו (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reasking since I get to answer as well the the deleting manager isnt avilable and says he is busy with his life. P;ease help. --ברטוביניו (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ברטוביניו (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:11, 16 August 2021 review of submission by GreenWorldz

Hey! I feel it's pretty necessary to create a page for this show as it is a daily-soap that is running and other shows like Mehndi Hai Rachne Waali and Aapki Nazron Ne Samjha too have pages. The sources too seem reliable. Please take a decision you think is wise, Thankyou :)

GreenWorldz (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:25, 16 August 2021 review of submission by Tcr25

Not sure if this page (Mudiwa Hood) was pushed to the mainspace prematurely or what, but there is a ton of AFC templates/comments at the top of the page. It popped up on my list of files to assess for WP:Biography, but I'm not involved with AFC to know the proper process here. I would appreciate someone taking a look and either cleaning it up or draftifying or something. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC) Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. It looks like an inexperienced editor moved it from draft to main; I've returned it to draft so the AFC process can continue. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:32, 16 August 2021 review of draft by Berglt84


I do not understand the reason my submission was declined. The only note given by "MurielMary" was that "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." However, user "Bkissin" wrote in his initial evaluation that "Brown probably meets WP:NPROF or WP:NMUSIC, but it should be looked over for tone/puffery," so I do not believe the subject himself is unqualified or lacks sufficient notoriety for a dedicated article, and I tried to use a diverse pool of reputable independent sources, including IndyWeek, the Herald Sun, and Pulitzer. (I used the official bios from Duke University-affiliated pages to fill in gaps or provide more recent information.) The rules regarding sources recommend peer-reviewed articles, but peer-reviewed sources would be irregular for biographical information. Are there specific references or sources that should be removed in order to get the article approved for submission?

Berglt84 (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:32, 16 August 2021 review of draft by Mirabiliamira


Mirabiliamira (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo everyone,

I can note understand wether an article "Ilaria Brocchini" is wating for review or not. Can you please tell me. Can you also help me with the article on this philosopher. She has already an article in the german Wikipedia

Thank you all--Mirabiliamira (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:36, 16 August 2021 review of draft by Haley St. Dennis


Haley St. Dennis (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:16, 16 August 2021 review of submission by 103.110.115.204


103.110.115.204 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:22, 16 August 2021 review of submission by 87.89.61.199


The earlier version of this page was deleted not because it was not notable, but because it contained similar information to a previously deleted page and was poorly cited.

I request you to kindly look into it with more sensitivity and revive the page. This writer, author, and activist has brought about significant change in the queer space in a country like India where “queer rights” is a lot more necessary and required.

This page qualifies and should exist on Wikipedia because this person has sufficient notability to be here such as GQ, Grazia, etc and I see no reason to not approve this page.

87.89.61.199 (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the top table here:
Your problem is that practically all of your sources "about" him are literally just handing him a mic to boast-rap. Sources that only parrot his quotes do not help for showing he's notable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

02:19:31, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Findganignunt


Hello, I'm attempting to create a wiki. The page was rejected because wiki is "not a missing persons site." Yet...

Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Jennifer_Dulos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_People https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Missing_person_cases_in_Maryland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Hae_Min_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Levy

Findganignunt (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Findganignunt. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or a medium for advocacy or showcasing of any kind. This edit indicates that however noble your cause may be, you are here for the wrong purpose. Wikipedia is not a missing persons site. It contains articles about some disappearances, when the event meets certain criteria, but routine disappearances – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Several of the draft's sources were self-published or group blogs, which are not reliable sources. The remaining sources are heavy on directory/database-type sources, which do not help establish notability. The Washington Post is routine crime reporting. Bethesday Magazine is better, but is insufficient on its own to demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

05:05:28, 17 August 2021 review of submission by OverLord Official

I don't know why my wiki thing was deleted because it wasn't a hoax at all... It actually is for my Twitter account https://twitter.com/AntivaxxerNews and I'm trying to get that verified so I really just need to have a wiki or something that mentions the account so please just let it be posted so I can get the link then you can just delete the wiki in like 15 hours and then I won't really care if it gets deleted as long I get verified lol OverLord Official (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. You will have to find another way to promote your stuff elsewhere. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 05:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OverLord Official Wikipedia has no interest in helping you get verified. If your Twitter account does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it will not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@OverLord Official: We don't do temporary articles, and I personally consider Twitter accepting a Wikipedia article for verification to be completely and utterly r-------. It's there mainly for the benefit of older personalities who have a history outside of the Internet, not for up-and-coming clowns who think it's that "one trick" that will get them verified (spoilers: We block users for that). I should also note we do not allow usernames implying official or shared use and urge you to change it ASAP. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:56:36, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Fastwaq


Fastwaq (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moot - page and editor were eighty-sixed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:57:14, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Mohammad Liyaqat

I want to know that how can I improve my draft page Draft:Yamaleela Aa Taruvatha.

Thanking you, Mohammad Liyaqat Wikipedian Editor

06:27:13, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Ahammeddiya


Ahammeddiya (talk) 06:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahammeddiya You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is for summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage, showing how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:09:49, 17 August 2021 review of draft by Rachele Canetti


To all whom it may concern.

I am a passionate sim racing gamer and I couldn't help but notice that there is no article about all the major brands linked to sim racing (Playseat, Fanatec, TrackRacer, SimLab, Simucube, etc). After many talks with mechanic institutes students who would like to find more notions about the evolving world of Sim Racing (as one of the most representative phenomena exploding during the COVID19 pandemic), I started writing articles about the major brands to be published in Wikipedia, starting with Playseat, which is one of the most representative in the market.

I am aware that one fundamental principle for publishing on Wikipedia is a list of authentic and recognized sources of information to be quoted, but at the moment is hard to find sources to validate it, as the intelligentsia is still not willing to write about it, especially about the single brands, as we are in a constant situation where new, emerging cultures are not considered "culture" unless they are at least 40 years old. As a Master of Degree in Asian Contemporary Culture and Economics, I had this problem many times, when willing to prepare documents regarding Japanese Pop Culture in the first 2000s, when nobody was writing anything about it and those who dared to raise their voices were accused of not promoting "proper culture", while now, 20 years later, seems to be one of the most important subjects to analyze the current Japanese society.

I do not want to address anybody of Wikipedia, as I think you are doing a marvellous job in spreading knowledge between people of any age and country, indistinctively, but I would like to address a problem which is going to haunt me and many people who would like to know more about the subject of Sim Racing and which names, which technologies, which cultural impacts are linked to it, but I am blocked in writing as it's difficult to find valid sources to quote for each fact.

At the moment in my article, I wrote small strings of content quoting international institutions like the FIA, WRC and Red Bull Racing, which are not "academic" sources, but we cannot deny their authority, but it's hard for me to add more as it's difficult to find source to quote which could be considered eligible.

What else could I do to make my article eligible to be published in Wikipedia?

Please, I strongly believe in this project and my dream is to publish a whole network of information about this subject. Can you help me?


Rachele Canetti (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rachele Canetti A company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please review Your First Article. If no such sources exist, then the company would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. If you just want to tell people about this topic or the companies involved, you might consider using social media or some alternative forum with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:01:19, 17 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 58.11.14.199



58.11.14.199 (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally no content on the page other than the decline notice, and there never has been any substantive content on the page, full stop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:00, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Arsenalfanguy


Arsenalfanguy (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Cochise (rapper)
Submit the draft for review by putting {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page while using the source editor. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:56, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Indiansocialwork

Dear Reviewer, May I please request a rereview of this article based on the subject's selection as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA) which is in itself a notable achievement. Royal Society website reads ' FRSA is an award given to the individuals who are recognized by RSA as made a remarkable contribution to Social Development'. thank you in advance for considering this if you do so. Indiansocialwork (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connexion with Baikady? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:45, 17 August 2021 review of draft by Shenaw2016


I would like to receive some help getting my article published. The review said my article is more like advertising than an encyclopedia. However, I have looked at EWTN and Twilio articles published on Wikipedia and find my content to be similar. Is there a way to make my content sound more like an encyclopedia? My references are from respected published sources. Are there any references that are inappropriate and are causing my publishing to fail? I can remove those resources. Thanks.

Shenaw2016 (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The very first paragraph "The Sacred Heart Enthronement Network has been established to assist and equip those wanting to promote and live out the Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus." is totally unacceptable and promotional, we have no interest in their mission statement. Theroadislong (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:47:05, 17 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Li-reg


Hello, my draft was declined due to Reliable sources and formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article BUT this draft is on a proffesor and all the sources are reliable (i.e Bar-Ilan University, gondabrain, researchgate, globes, Weizmann Institute of Science, Google Scholar and more) and the tone, according to all my checks are ok as well as compared to others in her field. I ask you to recheck it again please, I have submitted it a long time ago. Thank you. --Li-reg (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Li-reg (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You actually can't use the absence/presence/status of other articles to argue for your own. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A little blue Bori Ok, so what can be done? Im here to get help, Li-reg (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:52, 17 August 2021 review of submission by Findganignunt


Findganignunt (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Requesting a re-review. Edited, moderated, included cited public information for wikipedia.

@Findganignunt: You can cite all the public information you wish, this is still not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. (In the absence of actual proof that she is dead, we must assume that she is still alive, meaning that BLP protections apply here.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:55, 17 August 2021 review of draft by Official Dieborg


My draft got declined because of the sources which I had already guessed would happen. The sources are all from the same organization which makes it seem very one sided on paper. But the article is about a sports discipline and the source is the official governing body over this sport, no one else has a say in the rules. There are other sources that explain the rules but I dont want to create a mess in the sources. Do I just add more sources anyways? Or is my article in fact sufficiently sourced, or is there something else I'm missing? Official Dieborg (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Official Dieborg: to establish notability we need to see others have noticed and written about the subject in detail in reliable sources. We can use primary sources to confirm simple facts, however notability can only be established through the use of independent published, reliable sources. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody else has written about it, then there is no justification for an article in Wikipedia about it. Wikipedia is not for articles about stuff you made up one day. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:30, 17 August 2021 review of draft by 122.161.66.193


122.161.66.193 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

The Article written on Yogesh Yadav qualifies to be published . As , Yogesh Yadav is a public figure. Same has been verified by Instagram and Facebook notably. Please look into the matter

We have no interest whatsoever in what Instagram or Facebook say, they are not reliable sources, neither is YouTube. Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


August 18

Request on 00:21:25, 18 August 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kosarjaff


Hi, I have been trying to get this Wikipedia article approved via Articles for Creation process, and I am not sure how to interpret the last two denials I have received. The most recent denial is particularly unclear, as the sources span the author/subject, as well as other independent authors who cited the subject of this article, providing the evidence that the subject is considered an expert who developed substantial new work that advanced the state of the art in the subject's field of expertise. This article is being written to document the work this subject/author completed in their lifetime so that there is a single biographical account with evidence from cited sources that can be independently verified. Please approve this article of creation request, or please let me know how best to understand what the reviewer intends so I can help to add or edit as needed. Alternatively, if you concur with my proposal, I would appreciate guidance on how to proceed.

Like you I am also a volunteer and an enthusiast of the work of scientists and big thinkers and consider it a worthy cause to document even the most humble of achievements for the completeness of the record of science through Wikipedia.

Thank you.

kosarjaff (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosarjaff: Anything el-Ghonemy writes, even if he just coauthors it, is useless for notability. You have unsourced claims, an overcited claim, and two sources which evidently don't verify the sentence they're cited for. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC) (Re-signing for ping: —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC))[reply]

12:28:34, 18 August 2021 review of submission by Techprecious


Techprecious (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1039389899"