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 61.0.107.55 (talk) at 05:19, 6 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
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 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]

@Salamanderxander: I took a look and made some improvements. I agree that this should not have been rejected, only declined, and you are not wrong to notice there's a backlash on Wikipedia against cryptocurrencies. There are too many people who want to use Wikipedia to promote their products, and that has triggered resentment. I'll also point out that it will be frustrating if you try to compare your article with others that may have been approved before there was very much attention on them. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. In this case, I think you are 2-3 sources in mainstream (non-crypto) press away from demonstrating notability. Most of what's there now is crypto press, itself notoriously unreliable. Good luck. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:18, 3 September 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]

Courtesy note for future editors. Article was accepted and was moved to mainspace. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:59, 3 September 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)
Courtesy FYI for future editors. Discourteous editor SIRavecavec has been blocked from editing. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

You didn't ask a question, but I reviewed the article and found it to be poorly sourced. The sourcing doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). I'm also not sure Thapa won the beauty contests that the article claims she did. Sourcing will need to be improved. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:15, 3 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]

331dot, of course this is a contradiction, if one reviewer asks me to add a specific reference and another reviewer rejects the draft due to this added particular reference - yes, this is a contradiction. Carolyn Hodges (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, but it doesn't change anything. As this is a volunteer project, there is no central authority that directs what happens to drafts. Editors are free to operate independently within Wikipedia guidelines. As I said, even the other editor saw problems with the draft. Lastly, the only other thing you can do is appeal to the reviewer who rejected the draft. If they stand by their decision, there is nothing else to be done at this time. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 4 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]
Anna1824 The delay is due in part to the sources all being in Russian. Most of us do not read Russian. But after reading the article, I don't see how the person it notable enough. We have articles for other Heads of Kyiv City Administration, but Prokopiv was only Deputy Head. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines about politician's notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:26, 3 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

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

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]

Editorgowtham The draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered further. It cannot be resubmitted at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a creative professional, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:27, 3 September 2021 review of submission by Coatshut80

I still feel that this is notable enough as per WP:SOLDIER. I know that the guidelines have changed recently, and that this article may not fully satisfy the new criteria, but if that's the case, what about the articles of Zola Dabula and a few other people in the SANDF which also don't satisfy the new guidelines? Shouldn't they be deleted? And they were created not too long ago. Coatshut80 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Coatshut80: There are many poor articles that were created before the standards started getting enforced. They will eventually be identified and taken down. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Your article doesn't demonstrate Masisi's notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:04:51, 3 September 2021 review of submission by Abhayesports

Requesting a re-review because i believe that this draft satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, has multiple Reliable Sources, Clearly is notable. Was earlier written in a promotional tone and the AfD was stormed by sockpuppets. I've trimmed most of the promotional part and would request for a re-review. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 22:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Abhay Esports, the quality of sources is still questionable. And a large number of sources are about the same event. Can you get rid of those to start with? This might be a WP:1E case. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Nomadicghumakkad, There are 3 Events that have been widely covered in shafiq's case, 1. KashBook ~ Because he thwarted the social media ban in kashmir. 2. Stalwart Esports ~ It was widely covered because he signed a pakistani lineup and it was for this first time in history that an pakistani roster was playing under an indian organisation. 3. And for adopting crypto currency as payment method in his esports organisation which made it the first official esports organisation to do so.

This is definitely not an WP:1E case, it requires a cleanup from someone experienced, i've done as much as i could. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me

Considering that black-hat SEO and other payola sources were used last time, I'm incredibly sceptical of the sources used here. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey B, Jéské Couriano,
I Understand your concern, but i don't think the below mentioned sources can be Payola considering that they're been written by some big journalists and published by major media outlets:
There are many other sources mentioned in the draft with proper bylines but i believe the above mentioned one's are reliable and independent. Last time, the AfD was stormed by many sockpuppets hence these sources couldn't be discuss properly, I've trimmed the promotional part out of the draft and made it more neutral, Added about what he is known for and why he is notable, also added about some controversies against him. Warm Regards---
Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 10:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhayesports: I can't assess that book (copy required), as the Google preview omits literally anything after pg30; https://books.google.com/books?id=rLhwDwAAQBAJ&q=%22Zeyan+Shafiq%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA147#v=snippet&q=%22Zeyan%20Shafiq%22%20-wikipedia&f=false does not help with this a whit as the preview expurgates anything that could provide actual details or context. While the rest of the sources offered here are good, this is not the case for all of the ones cited in the draft:
Compare this list to what you proffer above. A lot of bad/marginal sources go a long way in strangling a small number of good ones. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel A little blue Bori have summarized it well. Just to add to what they have painstakingly explained, the focus is on quality of sources and not as much quantity. Also, citing articles that are more or less churnalism is a bad sign. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey AgainJéské Couriano,
I completely agree, The other citations sourced in the article are just there as primary sources and not WP:RS. The notability mainly relies on the source's i've shared above, and if we go by the basic rule of 3 good source's, i believe this draft passes that test. I would love to hear more of your opinion on the same. what do you think is inappropriate or unsuitable in the draft right now? Can you help clean it up so i can understand?
I Could not get the pdf but i've taken a screenshot of a page that introduces Shafiq in the book, i don't know how to get the book for free so i could share but this screenshot should help :- https://prnt.sc/1r9ud08
Also Nomadicghumakkad, I Understood that part and i already knew it and that's the reason i clearly posted proper sources above, i tried my best to remove all the promo content and improper sources, now i'm very confused on what to do next? My knowledge is limited to what i can execute and i've already done as much as i could, but still fail to notice where i am lacking.
Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 05:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhayesports: Start by getting rid of every source I mention above (save for the Catch News articles, for now) and any claim in the article cited solely to them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano,
Yo, Can you have a look now? and tell me if i missed out something, i've removed all sparse and role byline sources. Also thanks for the guidance. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 08:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still see some of the links I called about above being cited. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, Hey, Yeah i actually forgot removing some, I've removed them now, I kept catch news there as a primary source not as a secondary one, and Greater Kashmir one since it is a local media outlet and they've covered his other information so would be useful as a primary source to get information.
Can you now check and let me know if i'm missing out anywhere!. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 04:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

08:42:08, 4 September 2021 review of submission by &watiMi&hra

Added reference links more about the reception of the web series and controversies related with AAP &watiMi&hra (talk) 08:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

&watiMi&hra The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:47, 4 September 2021 review of draft by 176.59.56.223


Good day. May i inquire as to why the citations and references are not deemed as reliable. LA Times article or a confirmation of film festival award. That information can't be contested. Please help to improve the draft. Thank you

176.59.56.223 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple issues, but to mention a fre of them: IMDB is not a reliable source. There is no explanation of what "Free Journal" is. The LA Times review is a minimal mention of Levin. The draft mentions no film festival award; the source you are presumably referring to is in fact available online, and is here. It does say that Levin's film won an award at the Philip K. Dick Science Fiction Film Festival in 2018 – which, again, isn't mentioned in the draft – but we then come to the problem that awards that are not notable do not automatically make a filmmaker notable. Comparing the draft with the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serge Levin it is hard to see that anything has happened since that deletion to make him more notable, and it is interesting that some odd things in the draft are discussed in the AfD discussion, so presumably this draft is the same text.
Oh, and large bits of the draft are copied from https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3774970/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm . That is not allowed, since it is a copyright violation. --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:27:06, 4 September 2021 review of submission by 92.76.111.128

More than five own books as writer ! --92.76.111.128 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC) 92.76.111.128 (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further, as this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author. It is not difficult for people to publish books these days; merely having written books is insufficient. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:41, 4 September 2021 review of draft by Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri


Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sushameendra Simha.Vaddigiri: Your sources are not properly formatted (see Help:Referencing for beginners and Template:Cite book) The Awards and Contributions section is quite literally an unformatted mighty wall of text that is difficult to keep track of yourself in and physically painful to read, and should likely be removed for other reasons anyway. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:44, 4 September 2021 review of submission by 184.102.103.22


184.102.103.22 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to the top table here:
In summary, none of your sources are usable. Google isn't returning anything remotely usable either (string: "caroline blazovsky". I'd say this draft is DoA. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

05:28:25, 5 September 2021 review of draft by Friedl 11


Hi, the Draft:Georg Sporschill was declined by 2 reasons: 1. missing formal tone / neutral point of view, 2. missing independent, reliable, published sources. Item 1: ok, I am working on it. Item 2: which sources are wrong? Many thanks for help, Friedl 11

Friedl 11 (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:35, 5 September 2021 review of submission by Johndamiano


Johndamiano (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this article is the biography of an emerging film star "larissa andrade". she is a Brazilian supermodel and currently working in the US film industry. i have provided sufficient references and links to prove the authenticity of this article. please re-review this article and approve it. this article deserves to be on wikipedia.

Johndamiano The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's not "authenticity" that is the issue, but the special Wikipedia definition of notability, which it appears that this person does not meet. "Emerging" or "up and coming" talent rarely merits articles; persons must already be established to merit articles. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:25, 5 September 2021 review of submission by Phtmarket


Phtmarket (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why is my article declined?

Phtmarket Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; the reason was given on the draft by reviewers. As it was rejected, it cannot be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is an activist and an entreprenuer in India, he definitely meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia.I have added engough references for the article, But it's being declined for no fault.Please help Phtmarket (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phtmarket If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in the full desktop version of Wikipedia, even in a browser on your device. The app and mobile versions do not have full functionality. In a browser, scroll to the bottom and click "Desktop". You should then be able to edit this section. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer stated that the the subject is not present in the sources, but all the sources I have submitted are published in Telugu , a language spoken in the south of India, the reviewer is being very rude in her words.

Phtmarket I don't see any rudeness towards you. The sources do not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. While it is not required that sources be in English, if you use non-English sources in a language that is not common outside where you live, it's going to be harder to get a draft accepted. Just from looking at the URLs you provided, the sources seem to be routine, basic coverage, not significant, in depth coverage. Please see Your First Article; but the draft cannot be resubmitted at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out her talk page, she is being very inconsiderate and insensitive towards what I am trying to say. Please do allow me to resubmit the draft.

14:05:04, 5 September 2021 review of submission by Bolgerb1953


Bolgerb1953 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to find out how to appeal a decision of a single reviewer to remove Stakeholder Capitalism, even though it is a term in very wide use today. Here is a search result showing lots of references. The reviewer is conflating Stakeholder Capitalism with Stakeholder Theory.

https://www.google.com/search?q=stakeholder+capitalism&sxsrf=AOaemvJTUAmJBF375-3YAUi_bWNn1GAl3A%3A1630850639059&source=hp&ei=Ts40YbLTPImq5NoP_PCe4AQ&iflsig=ALs-wAMAAAAAYTTcX4ZarXg11hl_fJY0LDgEu6sIJbxq&oq=&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJzIHCCMQ6gIQJ1AAWABg0xVoAXAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCwAQo&sclient=gws-wiz

Bolgerb1953 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly the same topic as Stakeholder theory. Even the OP has said so: 'Added reference to the emerging concept of Stakeholder Capitalism, which is the more commonly used term today for the same concept.'. - MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bolgerb1953 - You have raised this issue in at least four forums, at such great length that it will be difficult to try to answer you, on your talk page, at the Teahouse, here, and at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (twice). I have closed your second filing at DRN. This AFC Help Desk is not the proper forum to discuss what is either a naming question or content fork question. I suggest that this thread be closed. I will also ask you, User:Bolgerb1953, to answer the question that you have filibustered on your talk page, which is whether you have a conflict of interest. That question should be answered before we can go any further to try to resolve this matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:51, 5 September 2021 review of submission by Durian1980

The draft created was a film's page which is unique and I suppose it is notable. The references made was from leading news websites in India. Pls let me know why the draft is rejected. Thank you. Durian1980 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Durian1980 The draft was only declined, not rejected. "Rejected" would mean that it cannot be reconsidered, but "declined" means that it can be reconsidered. Please see the message at the top of the draft left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:02, 5 September 2021 review of submission by MyNameIsIcycle


MyNameIsIcycle (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello, Liance

I was wondering what i could add to my "Republic Of Arctossia" wiki article in order for it to be published. Thanks, MyNameIsIcycle

MyNameIsIcycle The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about something that you created one day. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:36, 5 September 2021 review of draft by Lucas473


Hi, would like to get help on the article.

The sources are relevant as well to describe the works. For example, nr. 4 are two clips from Swedish national TV (SVT) and a commercial national channel (TV4). They describe one of the artist's important works and its exhibition in the famous Gallery Gummesson (there is an article on that, where this article could be included as a link).

There are also references from English sources, like Associated Press (nr. 9) and CBC/Radio-Canada (nr. 10.).

I would like to get help how to better the article and get it published.

Kind Regards, Lucas473 Lucas473 (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:49, 5 September 2021 review of submission by Jfklaess


Jfklaess (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

04:01:30, 6 September 2021 review of submission by KNPC1256


the videos need more coverage, and to let the people knows about flag animation, also flag animation let the people know the flag KNPC1256 (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:51, 6 September 2021 review of submission by 61.0.107.55


61.0.107.55 (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1042671831"