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 Editorgowtham (talk | contribs) at 20:50, 3 September 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 28

08:25:06, 28 August 2021 review of draft by James.anthonyy


I need help with writing my article.

James.anthonyy (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:49, 28 August 2021 review of submission by Tanjim Abubokor

Tanjim Abubokor (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjim Abubokor You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume or otherwise write about yourself. Wikipedia is interested in what others say about a person, not what they say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:48, 28 August 2021 review of submission by 79.66.181.52

Ozkara Label is a record label that has helped many people. They have got over 1 Million views on YouTube and over 35,000 monthly listeners on Spotify. They have over 10,000 followers on Instagram which can show us they are a big label company.

They help people from scratch and help them build their career, they are based in United Kingdom but they do works all around the world. If you check out their Instagram page you can see that they went in Top 100 on iTunes official charts listing at #87.


79.66.181.52 (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all nice and good; it doesn't matter if they have a hundred views or a billion views; if no independent reliable sources give this company significant coverage, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company, they would not merit an article. No sources were offered in the draft. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:42:42, 28 August 2021 review of submission by 117.193.139.194

The draft was rejected several times for not having notability and proper in-depth reliable sources. But, the sources I recently added and the most of the sources earlier given by others, all are reliable and have enough in-depth coverage on the show which shows that the show is a notable Indian TV Show. The show has also been on-air for the past one month and is fulfilling the notability according to WP:TVSHOW. So can you please re-review it once more?

117.193.139.194 (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is infested with socks seemingly here to promote this and related programs (one or more SPI still pending). Close scrutinty of content and sources needed if someone in good standing wishes to take responsibility for it. DMacks (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:59:43, 28 August 2021 review of submission by Jinnfoo0

Jinnfoo0 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was rejected, you cannot remove the notice and re-create. Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:40, 28 August 2021 review of submission by CrVelox

Hy guys I'm trying to publish my first article and right now I'm stuck, can anyone specify to me where I'm making the mistake CrVelox (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CrVelox The reviewer told you what the issues were- that it appears that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable politician and that they have not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

03:27:27, 29 August 2021 review of submission by Arjuna Anchan

Arjuna Anchan (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arjuna Anchan You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about one, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:47, 29 August 2021 review of draft by 2A00:23C5:E389:F401:D145:5712:DA18:9C50


How can I share new terminology that I’m writing in about in books & journals?

Keen to develop language that helps people better understand role of AI and it’s impact on society.. something I am publishing (and podcasting/speaking) a lot about.

Any advice would be very welcome.

2A00:23C5:E389:F401:D145:5712:DA18:9C50 (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New & coming things (including termology) is out of scope. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:39, 29 August 2021 review of submission by IFTEKHAR AHMAD SHEIKH(sanu)

IFTEKHAR AHMAD SHEIKH(sanu) (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IFTEKHAR AHMAD SHEIKH(sanu): Greetings. You don’t ask a question, but your draft had been rejected, as the reviewer had determined that there was no hope that this could be improved to the point where it could be considered as an acceptable article. I have tagged the draft for speedy deletion as unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is not a social media site and is absolutely not the place to post autobiographies, CVs, or any other form of self-promotion. --Finngall talk 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:35, 29 August 2021 review of draft by Citrine01


My draft has been rejected for reasons that are not clear. Not sure how to proceed. Totally disagree that the subject is not worthy. As one of Australia's oldest sailing clubs and the base for a number of classic yachts I can't understand the objections. I have provide multiple independent links to state government library and newspaper articles etc. Thanks

Citrine01 (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrine01: None of the sources in the article demonstrate notability. There's one short piece that says there was a race for women. You will need to find other independent media coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Please see WP:GNG and WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

03:10:20, 30 August 2021 review of submission by Marquettb

Marquettb (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan of a youtuber called Marquett Davon Burton who is a multimillionaire business man and author but the page I created got deleted. There is no button to 'contest deletion', how do I: A) Contest Deletion B) Write a better article.

Hi Marquettb. Wikipedia may not be used for any type of advertising, promotion, or public relations. Draft:Marquett Davon Burton was deleted because it was egregiously promotional. Please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator.
Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Writing better articles contain general advice, but Burton does not appear to be notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia), so you would need to pick a different topic to write about. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:38:24, 30 August 2021 review of submission by Abm1994

I am ready to fix .My source for the article is I google about it . You can accept it , I am ready to fix the issue . Abm1994 (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abm1994 The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. If you have new information that addresses the reasons for rejection, you must contact the last reviewer and tell them what has changed. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the references in the reference list.I connected with reference list .

22:11:03, 30 August 2021 review of draft by Jebandgus

I have written 2 drafts today and I got one back saying that the draft was blank; I rewrote the submission, but can't tell if it has been properly submitted. It's not in my contributions folder. Could someone please tell me if my draft has been submitted and is being reviewed? Thanks so much.

Jebandgus (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebandgus: Your submission was declined on August 30. There are several things you can do to improve your chances of success, before resubmitting. Most importantly is to make the draft less promotional. It reads like a brochure. You don't need to tell about the challenges to male fertility in the article. We have male infertility for that. The third paragraph of the lead section can be clipped. Don't start the history section with the award - go in chronological order. What year was the company founded? Not there. You'll also want to reorganize the information. You have info about mailing in sperm in the history section - that makes more sense being in a services section. On a lesser note, there are syntax issues. The ref code goes after the punctuation, and there are no spaces between the punctuation and first ref bracket. Sections are sentence case, not title case. You should also disclose your conflict of interest on your talk page, per WP:COI. Good luck! TechnoTalk (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

06:55:46, 31 August 2021 review of submission by Abm1994

someone edited the draft , what is it that we can do now . Abm1994 (talk) 06:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm1994:, 331dot has replied to you yesterday in a section above, Abm1994 The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. If you have new information that addresses the reasons for rejection, you must contact the last reviewer and tell them what has changed. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC) The only thing that is different since then is that Worldbruce removed an aparent copyright violation from the draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:55, 31 August 2021 review of draft by Insomniaingest


Hello, can you please review the article or give me permission to move to the article to the mainspace

Insomniaingest (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insomniaingest You have resubmitted it and it is pending, please be patient. If you move it into the encyclopedia yourself you run the risk of it being deleted or moved back to draft. Please allow the process to play out. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. -- Insomniaingest (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:02:08, 31 August 2021 review of submission by Salamanderxander

Hi all! I am requesting some support on this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elongate_(cryptocurrency)

A quick informal overview of the subject: Elongate is a company that has issued a cryptocurrency. It uses the funds raised to conduct philanthropic activities.

A brief backstory: I initially submitted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ELONGATE_(cryptocurrency) but it was rejected because there was already an existing draft on the subject. "Elongate" vs "ELONGATE". So, I took over editing the very poor-quality entry at "Elongate" and overhauled it.

I have reviewed GNG and the overall notability guidelines. In order to ensure that I met sufficient levels of notability for inclusion in WP, I looked towards existing articles in the same area of interest for guidance on what might be required to sum up to sufficient notability. This includes articles on DogeCoin, Shiba Inu, etc. In particular, I looked to the published article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SafeMoon SafeMoon is of particular relevance for comparison, as the organization was formed at a similar time, their cryptocurrency was issued at a similar time, and have risen to nearly identical levels of notability and reliable secondary coverage. In fact, it appears to me that the rejected "Elongate" article has more coverage and depth that the published "SafeMoon" article.

I reached out on the IRC for assistance, but was a bit disheartened at the emotional response I received, saying all entries in the "crypto" space are "Garbage". I hope that personal attitudes of reviewers towards the area of interest don't color the assessment of whether a topic is notable. Certainly, a film buff might think the subject of an Adam Sandler movie is garbage, but it's irrelevant to measuring the notability :)

If possible, I'd like some analysis and specific feedback on how to reckon the notability of the published safemoon article with this rejection. Is there specific milestones or a particular missing piece that can be sourced? Thanks for any advice!

Salamanderxander (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:07, 31 August 2021 review of draft by Danielboczar1992


Could you please help me with the citations? I want to know which references should be removed or changed, if any. Thank you.

Danielboczar1992 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:22, 31 August 2021 review of submission by 2402:4000:1181:E4F8:A052:4F43:F71E:35F3

2402:4000:1181:E4F8:A052:4F43:F71E:35F3 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't host copyright violations Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


September 1

00:17:49, 1 September 2021 review of submission by SIRavecavec

I am very curious, first of all how is this even possible? Our collective efforts from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Order_of_Musashi_Shinobi_Samurai to be so recklessly rejected by no sense and with such a blatant reason.

Submission rejected on 3 June 2021 by Nyanardsan (talk).

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Rejected by Nyanardsan 2 months ago. Last edited by 柴田バネッサ 18 days ago.

How is it possibe that someone from Indonesia rejects a post from Japan, written by several Japanese people, and well defined, this article is to great importance to our clan, to its members and we are quite many out there in the world. So why be so smart when is not needed? I clearly see not a single reason valid or the one picked not valid to reject such a masterpiece, approved by our clan leader! This is very disrespectful in every way possible.AND IF SOMEONE THINKS THEY CAN JUST ABUSE A STATUS OF ANY KIND HERE OR ANYWHERE IS A BAD DECISION! PLEASE LET US FIND A RESOLUTION TO THIS MESS CREATED HERE. [1]

Viorel Cosmin Miron 00:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Hi @SIRavecavec:, I rejected the article on the ground that it was not notable. I dont think I need to be a Japanese to reject an article about Japan. And the version I rejected was this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Order_of_Musashi_Shinobi_Samurai&oldid=1026730997#cite_ref-7 . Much of the information had little to do with the main topic, which is a fairly new organization established in 2019, and from my perspective the organization did not pass WP:ORG. Now the article has been expanded and the information there seems all fairly new compared to previous version I review, I suggest to create a new draft and submit it there as the previous draft was rejected. Thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also you said "our clan" and "our clan leader". If you have conflict of interest (see WP:COI), please declare it. Have a nice day @SIRavecavec: Nyanardsan (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the issue there? maybe your english, the way both use of -our clan- since I am a member, and we have a -leader-, both are valid. And only people from our clan had access to edit the article, that was where I was pointing. Hope it makes sense more now. @Nyanardsan I will submit a new draft tonight. Thanks for the extended detail, very helpfull! Viorel Cosmin Miron 18:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SIRavecavec No, this is Wikipedia and nobody owns the article (read WP:OWN). You can not say that only your clan could edit it. And it is an issue if you are personally a member of this clan, since that would make it conflict of interest. Editors are discouraged from editing articles they have close personal connection to (again, please read WP:COI). Nyanardsan (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have authority issues a bit, yet to be overly smart is also detrimental, just saying. Humbleness is more to be accepted when you do want fruitfull collaboration with anyone on this world. Unless you are someone who lives entirely in a room with a pc, virtually... Viorel Cosmin Miron 19:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    Only our organization have such information, you are not aware then, what means to be with a history in house, of over 450+ Years and having own scrolls, then yes only we have the authority, over such information and only we can make it public! Viorel Cosmin Miron 19:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Wikipedia:Be bold", Wikipedia, 2021-08-27, retrieved 2021-09-01

Request on 01:50:46, 1 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Niyosz


Niyosz (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:00:07, 1 September 2021 review of submission by CarolynHodges

Hello,

I again and again get into a vicious circle, some administrators ask me to delete some links and I delete them, and then some administrators on the contrary ask me to add links and I add them, and so on. The last two rejects are a good example:

  • User User:TheBirdsShedTears asked me to add the link: "I feel you need to provide sources with SIGCOV like this"
  • User User:Praxidicae rejected with comment "Blackhat SEO, paid for spam and press releases are not a suitable indication of notability."

My article itself is nothing to Black SEO or spam, it is about popular web analytics product.

Originally I used almost the same structure as for the Google_Analytics page and there were links to books and web-analytics influencers web sites.

> Mentions of a product by Loves Data company or by its founder Benjamin Mangold is a great honor in the Web Analytics world. It's like a song that you wrote was mentioned by Ariana Grande in her blog. And the same for Analytics Mania and its founder Julius Fedorovicius. Both companies (and their founders) are well-known and important figures in the world of web analytics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Komito_Analytics#Contested_deletion

Thanks you, Carolyn Hodges (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Hodges (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CarolynHodges Reviewers are not necessarily administrators. Since the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further. There seems to not be appropriate sources to establish notability. Press releases and routine announcements do not do so. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thank you for the clarification, but I added such sources only because the reviewers asked me to add them. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CarolynHodges If that's all that is available for sources, I regret to say that the topic would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, No, if you check the history you will see that there were links to books and web-analytics influencers web sites. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 13:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it was rejected with that in the history. I don't see a pathway to that draft being accepted at this time, I would suggest moving on to something else for the time being. If something changes(such as there being new information), you may appeal to the reviewer and present that information to them. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, it was rejected due to "unambiguously promotional" and one of reviewers (Mcmatter) made me favor and updated this article: "I have done you the favour of cleaning up the draft and removing anything not supported by a citation and anything promotional in tone. The issue left now is there are no independent sources left to establish notability." and he removed almost all references, including links to books and web-analytics influencers web sites and after that each next reviewer asked me to add or delete links :) Carolyn Hodges (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you would like to hear from me; it was still rejected, and you've been told why. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, It would be nice to hear any advice on how to be when the reviewers are asked to do actions that contradicting each other. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a contradiction for one reviewer to make edits to remove perhaps the most problematic content, and for the draft to still be rejected as lacking notability. Even that reviewer who made changes said that did not mean the draft established notability. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:24:15, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Longh24

Hello, it was 20 days and I still can't public my draft, it is always rejected. Do you have a solution, please? Longh24 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longh24 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:15:41, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Nubinharose

Nubinharose (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC) This is very complicated[reply]

Nubinharose (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC) THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED PLEASE HELP[reply]

Nubinharose Please be aware of the autobiography policy; Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about you. Writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder when trying to write about yourself, because you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. Most people cannot do that effectively. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:48:20, 1 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kashmira42


Kashmira42 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira42 You don't ask a question. Please be aware of the autobiography policy, however. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about you. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:23:15, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid

Sidhudiid (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhudiid You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sidhudiid You still haven't asked a question; please edit this existing section to reply, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:33, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Khyatijain069

Khyatijain069 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khyatijain069 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:34, 1 September 2021 review of draft by Anna1824

Hi! My request has been waiting for a review more than for month. Maybe it has any mistakes? Could you explain or help me, please? :) Anna1824 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna1824 Please continue to be patient; requests are reviewed by volunteers, who do so in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:08, 1 September 2021 review of submission by Israelinfonews

hey I add source that you said it reliable. (Android Central)

Israelinfonews (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A forum post is not a reliable source. You really should read through WP:RS until you understand it. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered any further. It is probably best that you move on to a different subject. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

03:28:57, 2 September 2021 review of draft by Nihara.widefy


Nihara.widefy (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if IMDB is not reliable source then what should I mentioned. Will roberts is a world record holder I mentioned that information and gave proper link to it will you help to improve my draft. so what else you would suggest me I should put and to take approval.

You should not need to cite his film/TV appearances if he is clearly credited under his name or a known pseudonym. Cites for credits are only required if he goes uncredited or Alan Smithee'd. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nihara.widefy - If you need an introductory explanation of what are reliable sources, the Teahouse might be a better forum to ask for advice. However, you have already been asked whether you have a conflict of interest. When you are asked that question, answering it is required, and not optional. You are not likely to be given much help in Wikipedia until you answer whether you have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:14:29, 2 September 2021 review of submission by Khyatijain069

(Redacted)

Khyatijain069 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy/paste your draft article in its entirety here. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Two of your sources are dead, one is a non-sequitur, a third is of unknown provenance (no author listed), and the remainder are name-drops at best. Nothing you cite is usable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khyatijain069: (Service): In case you need a longer explanation about what Jéské Couriano means, refer to the top table here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:32, 2 September 2021 review of submission by ברטוביניו

Hello, I am writing again since I seem to be etting no reply and Im forced to write and address the deletion manager again and again and still get no direct and serious answer as to why my draft was deleted and not even have the option to contest the deletion. My draft name was Gal Yosef and I cannot paste a link since its delelted. Gal Yosef is a 3D artist and as written in the draft sold over 1 million dollar of his art, has many articles written about him includin Vouge gr, Maariv (Israel) and many more (all placed in the draft).
I would like to get help with this draft and see what can be done inorder to review it again. Yes I was paid to do it but it was a small fee for my time, I believe in this draft and he, as many other artisits, deserves a chance to be reviewed after the draft was fixed. Please help me with this, thanks! --ברטוביניו (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC) ברטוביניו (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Gal Yosef Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt Thank you! Can you address my issue or should I wait? --ברטוביניו (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ברטוביניו: I am sorry, but because I am not an administrator, I cannot see deleted pages' contents and therefore cannot help you further. Please continiue to be patient, I am sure one of the admin folks here will eventually reply. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ברטוביניו: I can view the deleted draft; it was deleted as promotional, and it seems to have been sourced to nothing but press release type sources or interviews, which do not establish notability. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Speedy deletions, as it was marked as, may be deleted without delay or discussion if the relevant criteria is met. I believe it was; you may challenge it at Deletion Review, but I don't think you will succeed. If you have appropriate sources to establish notability, you should start fresh. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:42, 2 September 2021 review of submission by Kingsleykiings

This is the Profile of a Senior Pastor of a Church. This is to help to publicize the church. Kingsleykiings (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not contain "profiles" (thats a social media term, but we are not social media), Wikipedia has articles. I am afraid that publicizing is out of Wikipedia's scope. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:41, 2 September 2021 review of submission by Abm1994

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->

After removing the references I am asking each and everything clearly , I have a new reference can I add the review link .Please help in this .

https://asianmoviepulse.com/2021/09/short-film-review-prashna-question-2020-by-santosh-ram/ Abm1994 (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abm1994 The draft will not be reviewed again. Your repeated posts about this are becoming disruptive. Please move on to something else. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:45, 2 September 2021 review of draft by Starman2377


Starman2377 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC) I am requesting help for my draft about Vinny Vinesauce. I do not know how to do sources or other complicated things. Could i have some help?Starman2377 (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starman2377 You've dived right in to attempting to create a Wikipedia article, the hardest thing to do here, without knowing much about it. Before you go further, please use the new user tutorial. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Unless this person is written about by the news media or other reliable sources on their own, they would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you i should have known better, Could you link a tutorial specifically for making articles? Thanks, Starman2377 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:19, 2 September 2021 review of submission by SusanGassadi

We have edited this content so many times. I cannot understand why it's not be accepted.


SusanGassadi (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SusanGassadi Who is "we"? You were given the reason for rejection- the subject does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. As it was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

12:22:47, 3 September 2021 review of submission by Mujeeb506

12:22:47, 3 September 2021 review of submission by Mujeeb506 12:22:47, 3 September 2021 review of submission by Mujeeb506

Mujeeb506 (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Mujeeb506
We are not a web hosting service. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 14:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:43, 3 September 2021 review of submission by Editorgowtham

This post is not for any promotions. This post is highly professional. This page deals only professional related news and articles as you can see in Hollywood filmmakers and Hollywood technicians. This is like the same.

Editorgowtham (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1042225469"