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 Techsquare21 (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 10 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


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]
There is now a thread open at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 8 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]

KNPC1256 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources that discuss the concept of flag animation in depth to support the content of an article. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 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]

08:00:12, 6 September 2021 review of submission by MrSamContributor


I just publish this new article that has been rejected. (they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject) the reviewer said.

While I provided sources from the 2 mains Haitian newspaper (Le Nouvelliste, Le National) and the top Haitian specialize woman media. (Dofen News). How can you help me improve my referencing?

Kindly

Mr Sam

MrSamContributor (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MrSamContributor It's not clear to me which draft you are referring to. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, per the AFC message on the OP's talk page it seems to be about Draft:Valierie Alcide. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's the Draft:Valierie Alcide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSamContributor (talk • contribs) 17:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:03, 6 September 2021 review of submission by MessagesHub


MessagesHub (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC) why my article was rejected?[reply]

Educated guess, baed on the block raationale: advertising. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:05:36, 6 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Spk.ideas



Spk.ideas (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:33:54, 6 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Ddeckwerth



Ddeckwerth (talk) 10:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I have just Tried to Publish a New Page on my Wiki Account. But after I Published, there comes a Notification form the Editors about the Declined Article I Published. The Reason Mentioned that it's look like a CV, can you Please help me to Re-Edit the Document so that it will get Accepted. Here is the Link to the Page: Draft:Dasha Deckwerth

Ddeckwerth Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes 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. That is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves, because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:39, 6 September 2021 review of submission by ScContributor0


This submission was rejected due to Crompton not being considered notable. I have added more references to show notability from more sources and removed some other sections. Please re-review this submission.

ScContributor0 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing to suggest it comes anywhere near passing WP:NCORP.Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:57:04, 6 September 2021 review of submission by MirkoS18

I think that the reviewer in part failed to recognize different levels of notability of the topic in different contexts. He also mentioned that we may have as many as hundreds of cases without actually stating why he thinks so and why it would make the list irrelevant. The topic is notable to the extant that the split up is often politically or by identity motivated. This clearly creates interest for the topic in the case of France punishing universities after the protests of 1968 by splitting them up, Belgium where it was based on linguistic identity (if I can understand any French it is in part addressed for example Here ), in Balkans during the war, in Turkey where it causes demonstrations [the plan to split up universities led to actual demonstrations, as mentioned in the cited source]... Providing opportunity to the rest of our global community to include different language sources would almost certainly lead to further development. Cutting it from happening because it does not seem to be value in "Little Britain" context (if I may permit myself to say) does not seem to do it full justice. Now I fully appreciate that Doric is usually doing an amazing and important voluntary job and that there is an increased drafts burden in recent days, but I would like to receive a second opinion-firstly on the draft as it is, and if for some reason I am completely delusional than how it should be improved? Maybe to narrow it down to include politically/identity motivated split ups?-yet one may probably argue that even administrative/funding based split up is ideologically motivated. But I am taking too much of your time now... MirkoS18 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MirkoS18: Have split-up universities been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? That's the usual way of demonstrating that a list is notable. The list doesn't fulfill any of the main purposes of lists. By grouping universities according to a non-defining characteristic it strays into being unencyclopedic, into being what Wikipedia is not.
Unless you're editing under unusual sanctions, Afc is an optional process for you. If you disagree with the advice you get here, you're welcome to risk deletion and move the list to article apace yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:24, 6 September 2021 review of draft by 2402:3A80:1C44:7F25:A0BF:F204:42EC:9472


The decline reasons are not convincing from any sides. The article is written in accordance to notability requirements of actor and is supported by adequate reliable references. She has performed in a number of TV soaps and is a popular face in Bengali television industry. 2402:3A80:1C44:7F25:A0BF:F204:42EC:9472 (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:03:38, 6 September 2021 review of submission by 2401:4900:45B5:6710:740C:7A42:FF0F:4B96


2401:4900:45B5:6710:740C:7A42:FF0F:4B96 (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly rejected, zero reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

02:16:32, 7 September 2021 review of draft by Ovaryian


Hi there, I wanted to ask for help refining this article draft for submission. It has been rejected twice, but in July the commenter said it was much improved. I would love an experienced editor to take a look and give more specific feedback or recommendations as to what should be cut/added to make this a better Wikipedia article.

This is the article in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shari_Diamond

Ovaryian (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:28:33, 7 September 2021 review of submission by Waryaafilms

Why my article got declined? Waryaafilms (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)Musa Aden Waryaafilms (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted new Article and it got declined and i just want to find out why? Waryaafilms (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no sources? Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make about a living person MUST be accompied by an inline citation to a reliable source, that verfies that fact. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:35:14, 7 September 2021 review of draft by TAQUEDA, Atsuo


Hello, everyone. Please help me.

This time, the artist I am editing Wikipedia is a contemporary artist who has a career of more than 50 years and is particularly prominent in Europe and East Asia, but there are only French and Japanese versions of Wikipedia.

I think the English version covers all of Europe and America, so adding his article to the English version is also of great value to Wikipedia.

Generally, there are few publications about the artist's achievements because his work and exhibition catalogs are the main source of his achievements.

I searched for publications as hard as I could, but found only a few.

The most credible sources of my article are his catalog raisonné (Japanese / English / German / French notation) published in Japan, Benezit Dictionary of Artists (French), catalogs of his exhibitions, and the webpages.

Can't you meet the submission conditions with these?

Thank you, from Japan.

TAQUEDA, Atsuo (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TAQUEDA, Atsuo Different versions of Wikipedia have their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. An article here on the English Wikipedia(which is worldwide, not just Europe and North America) must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) an artist, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. The artist's own exhibitions and work are not independent sources and would not establish notability. If that is all the sources that are available, the person would not merit an English Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. But, excuse me! It's not a help.

You may not be familiar with the international art scene, but Keiji Uematsu is explicitly a "notable artist" and deserves an English Wikipedia article. So I need a help for an article to be submitted. Of course I have no intention of making an exhibition or work an independent source of information. Also, they are not all available sources. I wrote there are only a few (or not so many) independent and reliable sources of information because an artist's achievement depends on the work itself and its catalog, generally. Isn't a catalog raisonné (a general publication about artists and works, not an exhibition catalog, multilingual version), an artist directory (Benezit Dictionary of Artists, Oxford University Press.), and web pages an information enough?
Thank you, again. --TAQUEDA, Atsuo (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:46:42, 7 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Виктория Шмыговская


Good day! I represent A-navigation Promotion Centre MARINET RUT. We have placed the draft Autonomous and remote navigation trial project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Autonomous_and_Remote_Navigation_Trial_Project) based at the information from the site of our organization - www.a-nav.org. Actually, we have send a permission letter. It was send on 24 August 2021 from alexander.pinskiy@a-nav.org (the e-mail of the Director of the a-Navigaton Promotion Centre MARINET RUT. May i ask you to check this information and recover the Draft? Thank you in advance. Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Виктория Шмыговская The English language Wikipedia has no interest in what you wish to say about yourselves. It is not a vehicle for yoiu to promote your products, services, or selves. Please also read WP:PAID. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FiddleTimtrent it seems like I am misunderstood. We are not going to promote any products or services. As you may see, this is an article about the project, it doesn't consist any advertisement. But it is very important project not only for our organization. All the projects we are going to write about have a huge value in international meaning as technologies wich would save people life and reduce ocean polution. Actually the projects are approved by International Maritime Organization (IMO)Autonomous shipping. Is it possible to recover the draft? Thank you!Виктория Шмыговская (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Виктория Шмыговская Others may disagree, but I still see the same issue. The project is But it is very important project [not only] for our organization, which implies that you and/or your organisation derive some benefit from it, broadly construed. This equates to our broad interpretation of paid editing in my view.
I am not concerned with any good or harm the project might achieve, only with Wikipedia's policies. You could ask a question about this at WP:COIN and obtain a consensus based answer FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:59, 7 September 2021 review of submission by Solajacobs1

The Subject, INIOLUWA KEMI COKER is a notable songwriter/ musician in Nigeria,west Africa. This is her instagram page: https://www.instagram.com/inioluwagem/?hl=en and this is her twitter page: https://twitter.com/inioluwagem?lang=en These are some of her works: https://www.reverbnation.com/inioluwagem


Solajacobs1 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solajacobs1 This is Wikipedia. This is its notability policy and this is what Wikipedia is not for. These are some of Wikipedia's other policies and guidelines. Nyanardsan (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:21, 7 September 2021 review of submission by Mjagidar45


Mjagidar45 (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:23, 7 September 2021 review of submission by YellowFrogger


YellowFrogger (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:58, 7 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jfklaess


Hi Editors, I'm asking for clarification as to why a submission (Awesome Two) isn't meeting the requirement for notability, and help getting it up to standard. I asked a question over a year ago and never got a response.

I've included citations from numerous contemporary sources (Billboard, Village Voice, Vibe, and Black Radio Exclusive) that are more than passing mentions, as well as evidence of historical import from coverage in histories, documentaries, and mentions references in song lyrics and on album covers (should satisfy this criterion: 1.) Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture). Further, they're listed as an "associated act" on this Nice n Smooth Wiki Page.

As producers, the duo has sufficient production credits in their name to satisfy these criteria: 2.)Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre; The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Please advise on the status of these sources, and ways I can adjust the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

I wrote my Ph.D dissertation on the history of rap radio, and interviewed the Awesome II and their peers numerous times. I wrote a long chapter about their career and influence. I was told that my Ph.D dissertation does not count as a source (though this is Wikipedia's stance on the matter: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan or from Proquest"), and so removed the citation.

Additionally, I have a book coming out of Duke University Press (Fall 2022, it's passed 3 rounds of peer review and is in production). There's a 60 page chapter on the Awesome II. Surely this meets Wikipedia's criteria for reputable sources and "more than a passing mention."

The Awesome II have made incalculable contribution to hip hop music. Please help me meet this communities guidelines.


Jfklaess (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfklaess It seems to me that you are working hard and with passion and need a smidgen of guidance. Please look at Wikipedia:Notability (music) and make sure your duo pass the criteria there. Look also at your references. The musicians are living people. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with some care.I'm not sure whether you have a COI or not, and we rely on trust for you to make a correct declaration. Your book may, or may not be a useful reference, buty you have to be clear on its role. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:52, 7 September 2021 review of submission by 2401:4900:5D14:7A19:20C9:B4D7:4F15:838C


2401:4900:5D14:7A19:20C9:B4D7:4F15:838C (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in when you edit here.
The draft is an unreferenced vanity page, and has been rejected FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:20, 7 September 2021 review of submission by Masterwork


REVISED IN THE LIGHT OF COMMENTS AND REMOVAL OF COPYRIGHT MATERIAL

Masterwork (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterwork The draft has been rejected and will not proceed further FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me EXACTLY what is wrong about this entry, and why is has been removed? What grounds have for making the claim "This draft is a copy, without attribution, of Draft:Karl Fiorini." This draft, revised, is simply based on the same basic entry I have always submitted. My patience is becoming tested.

Masterwork (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterwork: Please do not start a new section with each of your questions and do not use the excessive bolding. If this continues your future requests may just be reverted on sight and your editing privileges revoked as it becomes disruptive. The original reviewer left you a reason for the decline, they fail to meet any of the following criteria WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. The article it self reads like an advertisement, and it copy pasted from Draft:Karl Fiorini. I would recommend reading through the links here and in the other decline messages, then working on the original at Draft:Karl Fiorini, but only after you get more familiar with how Wikipedia works and our core policies. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masterwork - Are you also User:AVM46? If so, you have confused the reviewers by your user of multiple accounts, and you need to declare that you have been using multiple accounts, and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

00:20:47, 8 September 2021 review of submission by 8.210.170.76


8.210.170.76 (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

01:52:15, 8 September 2021 review of submission by 216.174.66.212


He is part of the history of the Uprising, attested by the sources!

216.174.66.212 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:42:20, 8 September 2021 review of draft by Suhailsmm


Suhailsmm (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my page FEROZ SAMA getting denied, what am i lacking

@Suhailsmm: there are several reasons.
  • The draft does not show that Sama is according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. Follow that link to see what is needed to show notability.
  • The draft is not supported by reliable sources. Websites hosted at Wordpress are not reliable sources, the Sanchar Pati source is just one brief paragraph (and I'm not sure about the status of sancharpati.com in terms of reliability), and the exact same thing applies to Nepal Headlines – a very short text, and the source looks rather weak.
  • Many of the claims in the draft have no source at all. Sama's date of birth, nationality, personal history, and trade in gemstones are some of the things that are not mentioned in the sources. How did you find this information? I have removed the names of his children from the draft, per this policy; there was no source and no claim that they are themselves notable.
  • The draft is written like an advertisement for Sama. --bonadea contributions talk 07:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:55, 8 September 2021 review of submission by Masterwork


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Masterwork

Since I cannot agree with your reasons for rejecting this draft - I wrote it as a brief, factually accurate entry, not an advertisement - I am withdrawing it. I broke no copyright: AVM46 was another identity I used once, clearly in error for which I sincerely apologise. It will not happen again. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Masterwork

Masterwork (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masterwork, Robert McClenon was quite clear for why the draft was rejected. There's no appropriate way to verify you're the same person without doing an SPI. It is also worth noting that User:Masterwork was originally created in 2008. You're welcome to improve and submit the original draft (Draft:Karl Fiorini), but Draft:Masterwork has been rejected and will thus not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 17:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Curbon7 - If a person declares that they have used multiple accounts, we assume good faith and accept that declaration. SPI is only needed for bad-faith multiple accounts, if they are evasive (as is far too often the case). As we both said, they may work on the original draft, Draft:Karl Fiorini. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this started because I tried to move Draft:Masterwork to Draft:Karl Fiorini, which is who it is about, but there is already a draft there. The submission of duplicate drafts is often done to game the system. In this case, it may have just been a mistake, and they should work on the original draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterwork and AVM46: - Why were you using multiple accounts? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:19, 8 September 2021 review of submission by Abhayesports


I earlier posted for a re-review of this draft, i was suggested changes which i did, but what to do next? I mean i made the changes but how do i post it again for a AfC submission? or if i'm missing something. Earlier the sparse links were pointed out and promotional content, both have been removed and i've written the article as neutrally as i could. Warm Regards---Abhay EsportsTalk To Me 11:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:10:49, 8 September 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid


Sidhudiid (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Curbon7 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:07, 8 September 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid

 Courtesy link: Draft:Davinder Bhatti


Sidhudiid (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhudiid, you didn't ask a question. The determination concluded by multiple reviewers is that the subject does not meet the notability criteria established at WP:NMUSIC. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:18, 8 September 2021 review of draft by JRSpouge


As part of my response to rejection of my article I would like to change its name from "ONE Apus" to "ONE Apus cargo loss" before resubmission. How do I do this?

JRSpouge (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:44:04, 8 September 2021 review of submission by MACSAL

Liance: Trying to point to business entities in Liberia, West Africa. This draft being an example. Perhaps a STUB works better? Any pointers will be appreciated. MACSAL (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:53:18, 8 September 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MiracleCloud


I would like to ask for a new revision on my draft article (title - Draft: Environmental-friendly production (South Korea)), but when I add the This template should be substituted on the article's talk page. template as the Wikipedia instructions suggest, it says, "This template should be substituted on the article's talk page.". I tried adding it both to the draft page and to the talk page of the draft - the result is always the same. I can't seem to understand what I am supposed to do in order to ask for a new review, since my article was draftified after I published it and I changed it trying to better fit Wikipedia standards. I am aware I could move the article to published myself, but when I did last time the article went through a deletion discussion. MiracleCloud (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MiracleCloud (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:25:44, 8 September 2021 review of submission by Ksenya Polukarova

Hello there, Recently, I've published my first article about iSpring Solutions, Inc.. The draft was declined. The reason is in description. The editor says it looks like an advertisement. Could you help me to understand what parts I should improve to re-publishe this page again and make it alive? Before writing the text, I was making a little research about other eLearning company's pages. I was trying to use neutral tone and add only independent resources. So, I would like to get more detailed feedback about reviewing. Any help will be much appreciated. Thank you! Ksenya Polukarova (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

05:06:36, 9 September 2021 review of draft by WQFDU


Hi! I have received the same message of lack of reliable sources multiple times and did add more references for the content. I was wondering if you could provide some details about how to revise the draft (Global Justice Index). So far, I don’t have any additional references for that one.

Thank you so much for your time. Wen WQFDU (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:14:05, 9 September 2021 review of draft by MilesRRFC


MilesRRFC (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reviewer looking at my draft for Rock Camp: The Movie says it still reads like an advertisement and only shows the positive sides of the film. How can I make it more neutral other than just adding negative things about it? Thanks!

86 the cast list from the article. Only the most important roles should be noted, and even then only in the infobox unless there's something notable about the cameos. We also prefer prose to a list. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:41, 9 September 2021 review of draft by Orgliandino


Orgliandino (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, am a relatively new user so please forgive if I'm not following the correct path. My draft on Bleomycin-Electrosclerotherapy (BEST) was declined due to notability: "There is no indication BEST is notable outside of a very niche set of researchers. In fact, beyond a handful of barely cited journal articles, I could find no other sources for this treatment. As such it would not be eligible for an article at this time. Sclerotherapy is indeed notable and already has an article; perhaps electrosclerotherapy could be briefly discussed there". It is true that there's not many further sources on the topic, but it should be considered that this a recent treatment option for a rare disease (vascular malformations), therefore something with not much coverage by definition. Maybe the reviewer who declined the draft is right and I should just mention the voice within "sclerotherapy", however if you look at other treatment options for vascular malformations mentioned in the "sclerotherapy" voice, like polidocanol or sodium tetradecyl sulfate, the journals cited as sources have comparable or inferior impact factor than those cited as sources for bleomycin-electrosclerotherapy. So my question is: does bleomycin-electrosclerotherapy deserve also a separate page or should it only be mentioned in the "sclerotherapy" voice? Thanks a lot

I would add it to Sclerotherapy if you can't otherwise meet the notability requirements for a standalone article on it. Bear in mind that any claim that implicates human health (including medical treatments) is held to much tougher sourcing standards. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:14, 9 September 2021 review of draft by New Cap - agence de communication financière


New Cap - agence de communication financière (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I created a draft "Poxel" to publish an article but I don't understand why it is doesn't work.

The user is presently blocked, but the draft remains up. One thing I immediately notice is that the article makes claims that implicate WP:MEDRS - one of our toughest sourcing policies - but does not provide the strong sourcing required. This is not acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:26, 9 September 2021 review of draft by Moviebuff000


Moviebuff000 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How can I change the name of my village from Greek to English so I can continue to write the article in english thank you Moviebuff000 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moviebuff000: changing the article title from greek to english requires (like all other article title changes) a page move. I see Theroadislong did this for you. While populated legally recognized places are automatically presumed noteable under WP:NGEO, this draft would benefit from a few sources to support its content Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:21, 9 September 2021 review of draft by HelenaCoffea


The article is a translation of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag24. Can I mark the article as translation?

HelenaCoffea (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HelenaCoffea: please see Help:Translation for things to keep in mind when translating. I have left {{Translated page}} to the draft talkpage. Please keep in mind that different language versions of Wikipedia are seperate projects with seperate rules, including, but not limited to, rules in regards to what can be included, called Relevanzkriterien over there and notability here at the english Wikipedia. All english Wikipedia articles must meet the english Wikipedia's rules for inclusion, wether they are a translation from another language Wikipedia or not. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:24, 9 September 2021 review of draft by RockTheBlockchain


Hello and thank you in advance. I'm hoping to receive some help and direction on how to improve our sources, specifically if there are any sources or sections we should focus on improving? I was hoping the 2nd submission with 3x external sources would help but it seems that was not enough to get accepted. That said, we're also in support of removing specific sections if that's easier, allowing us to publish while continuing to work on our external sources in the coming weeks. If you have concerns over certain sections, let us know and we'll either focus efforts there or simply remove and resubmit.

Thank you again!!

RockTheBlockchain (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before we continue, are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN you want to continue working in an area under general sanctions? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:04, 9 September 2021 review of submission by GeorgeKotsolios

I am confused. The sources I have cited for the VentureFriends submission are all from independent highly credible publications such as techcrunch and Sifted.eu and none of the articles are a result of a press release.Why is therefore the submission not accepted? GeorgeKotsolios (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content is as important as the outlet, and neither routine business news or "news" commissioned or written by the subject are acceptable sources as far as notability is concerned. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:58, 9 September 2021 review of submission by Invasive Spices

Hi everyone. I have a question about a page I could create myself. The problem here is that I can't cover the entire subject perfectly. I'd like to think that's fine - that's called a stub - and happens all the time. But I wanted to ask first:

The subject of the proposed biography is an entomologist, insecticide efficacy researcher,[1] and med school professor (really Emeritus, retired).[2] I am familiar with some of that and very familiar with a little of it. (Overall this is an author/co-author who shows up often in WP articles, which I think is another good measure of whether we should have a page about him.)

However the medical part I am very unfamiliar with. I am concerned I would get the basic terminology in that area wrong (what he's done/what he knows).

Question is: Is this page just going to get deleted if I do as much as I can? If people just complain/change things that's normal on WP obviously. But I don't want to just have it deleted. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to demonstrate the subject is notable in some fashion and (if the subject is alive or has recently died) source literally any biographical claim that could be challenged for any reason. The former is usually easy (WP:NACADEMIC sounds like it'd apply here) but the latter tends to be harder to do for NACADEMIC articles since there's very little about their actions in newspapers of record or scholarly books; the focus is almost entirely on their research. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

03:05:49, 10 September 2021 review of draft by Drewolarenshaw


I can't find anywhere to edit my draft title. I need to remove the "'" from 'Collegian's' so that it read 'Collegians'

Drewolarenshaw (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:35:16, 10 September 2021 review of draft by Techsquare21


Hi there, I'm wondering if someone could help me by advising which of my sources were not adequately supported by reliable sources. Was it all of them or just some? Can I reduce the amount of information within the article to have the submission accepted?

Techsquare21 (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1043440136"