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 Navnine9 (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 23 October 2021 (→20:53:28, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Navnine9). 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


October 17

00:36:54, 17 October 2021 review of draft by Thedailyneedle


The reason being is that since there are the lack of proper information on Carlos, I would like for it to be on page. (from what I’ve seen. Many of the sources however have similar info.) I’ve spent hours trying to find info on the subject.

Thedailyneedle (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:40:50, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Normal rookie

Can give me advice about the draft, I improve the draft many times Normal rookie (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:37:42, 17 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Shambepress


I want write an article about my news paper and organization but I see it is rejected. There for I want you to help me get it done in accordance with your guidelines and policies.

Shambepress (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shambepress Your draft is a blatant advertisement for your newspaper business. A Wikipedia article about your newspaper must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what your organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with it choose on their own to say about it(not based on any materials put out by your organization like its website, interviews with staff, or press releases).
Since you work for the newspaper, please review and comply with conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:56, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Azizaryanswiki


Azizaryanswiki (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azizaryanswiki You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:03, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Martin.tinku510

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

Martin.tinku510 (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:03, 17 October 2021 review of draft by Martin.tinku510

When you have finished, click the "Publish changes" button or your request will not be posted!!!-->}}

08:38:51, 17 October 2021 review of draft by VijayWayne


Can someone please help me adding sources to my draft? Thank you so much! VijayWayne (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:47, 17 October 2021 review of draft by CredenceMind


Do I need to provide reliable sources for the various performances given by the artist? What can I do if there is no coverage of the performances given by the artist? Does images or videos taken during the performances can be used as reliable sources? CredenceMind (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CredenceMind Before worrying about citing the performances, you must first establish that this musician meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, by summarizing and citing independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the musician. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:52, 17 October 2021 review of submission by 47.201.107.68


Please help me fix 47.201.107.68 (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. Please see the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:35, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Anishkatyal05

Dear Team, this is company page and have used the legit information for them. please let me know what went wrong the reason my submission was rejected. Anishkatyal05 (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected because it was blatant advertising and speedy deleted as such. Wikipedia is NOT a venue for promoting or listing your business. Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:17:05, 17 October 2021 for assistance on Draft:SATURATE!RECORDS submission by Xythium


i want to make a page for the record label that i work for (im not getting paid to make the page, but i do get paid to work for the label obviously)

i modelled the page after Mau5trap & Mau5trap_discography, because those are the pages im the most familiar with

i have set up an artist section, with every artist that has been "signed" (its actually a list of every artist that has released on the label, or on a compilation, not counting any featured artists for both of those, because i dont know or have the actual list of contracts). these should have references, but i dont really know where to get them. all of these artists/releases can be found the Bandcamp & SoundCloud pages for the label, and most of them can be found on many music stores & services. i dont know if those are valid references. the mau5trap page uses articles/magazines as references but i dont know if thats feasible here, and it would be tedious to find for every single release/artist (and probably doesnt exist for many)

i have also set up a section for the label discography. i dont see mau5trap using references here (for the majority) so i assume it's fine i dont do that here either, but the same thing would be true for what i said for artists.

further more i would like to know if there is anything else i should add, and if there is anything style-wise that should be changed Xythium (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xythium, Mau5trap was created in 2011, way before the current notability standards are in existent. You should not follow the article as an example. An interested editor may come along and improve the article. You can considered the page as grandfathered. A more recently edited article that you can reference to would be (almost) any of the Korean record labels such as JYP Entertainment.
To pass the notabilty criteria, it is best to include a history section, with the content well-supported by third party, independent and reliable sources. As for the list of artists and groups under them, only those who are notable should be included, Wikipedia is not a directory listing.
Lastly, conflict of interest guidelines are clear. As long as you are in employment in any capacity by the company the article is about, you have a conflict of interest. Do put the necessary declarations on your talk page and on the draft/article's talk page as well. – robertsky (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:57, 17 October 2021 review of draft by 67.60.48.205


is there any way to delete the article or pull it from the queue for review? thanks 67.60.48.205 (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get what you meant by your question. The draft in question has been deleted for unambigious advertising. – robertsky (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:24, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Eddie10a

HI I was wondering how I can start a wikipedia page for myself? Im a Rock singer known in my style of music. Thanks Eddie Law Eddie10a (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie10a, we don't encourage people to right about themselves. Because inevitably the article will either be a promotional piece of work, which runs contrary to the goals of Wikipedia as an encylopedia, or you be upset at the perceived lost of control of the article's content and direction. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. You can request for an article to be write about yourself at Wikipedia:Requested articles, and hopefully someone will pick it up. – robertsky (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie10a Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. This is a subtle but important distinction. Writing an article about yourself, while not forbidden, is highly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy. Please also learn about how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
If you still want to attempt to write an article, please review the definition of a notable musician. If you meet it, you need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources say about you. Most people have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


23:29:20, 17 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly


I am requesting a re-review on WP:NORG, to explain how the following sources do not address and event of the Company as it's main: 

Blakkarly, Jarni (6 April 2020). "Greg Mortimer: 81 people test positive for COVID-19 on Australian cruise ship off Uruguay". SBS News. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
Noyes, Jenny (6 April 2020). "More than 80 passengers on board Greg Mortimer cruise ship test positive for COVID-19". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
"Uruguay transports Australians, New Zealanders from virus-hit cruise ship". Reuters. 2020-04-11. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Kwan, Biwa (2020-04-11). "Greg Mortimer: Australian, New Zealand passengers go into quarantine after arriving in Melbourne | SBS News". Sbs.com.au. Retrieved 2020-04-25

I am also requesting a re-review of the WP:IBA, and ask which sections are considered blatant advertising? Also what CNN source is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hako9 referring to?

Scootbilly (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scootbilly, History of expedition cruising in Antarctica section can be removed without effect the article as the article should be about the company and the company itself. History of Aurora Expeditions is largely uncited. It is also rather puffery in its words and boasts of its founders rather than about the company. Very promotional in nature too, 'launches websites with local currencies...' etc. That's not remarkable or notable in today's context. The rest of the article has no proper citations, and are also puffery in nature. COVID-19 on the ship section is not needed, rather a single sentence summary may sufficie given that the ship has its own article page, and the situation is already described there.
Indepedently, I feel that the article is rather promotional, and advertorial in nature. The WP:IBA call is right. The article will require significant rewrite, however I am unsure if there are other sources beyond what has been provided in the article. – robertsky (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can recall there isn't/hasn't been. (string: "aurora expeditions"). We have also repeatedly and in no uncertain terms told users who came into IRC and claimed to be working for the company to disclose. Based on the red links for their user and talk pages, they have not done so. We should not be rewarding mercenary editors who are quite clearly playing dumb. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

03:10:30, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

A rewrite has been completed, can I please request a re-review of WP:IBA and WP:NORG Scootbilly (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Scootbilly#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:45:52, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Worldbruce Incorrect template usage. Please use {{connected contributor (paid)}} instead. Scootbilly (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:58, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Rooz1370

Hello and thank you for your time. I have recently added multiple articles that can elucidate some of the citations that needed further clarification. The text has also had minor changes so the tone could shift to a more reported tone. Thank you again for your time. Yours Sincerely, Rooz1370 Rooz1370 (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:49, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Martin.tinku510


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

Martin.tinku510 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:12:49, 18 October 2021 review of draft by Martin.tinku510

13:10:44, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Pro75008


I contact you concerning the Poxel page. On 7 october, you tell me this : We can't use https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/50/19009/french-firm-poxel-launches-type-2-diabetes-drug-in-japan.html (unknown provenance). It doesn't help that it reads like a press release. We can't use https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/poxel?countrycode=fr (too sparse). Stock tickers are worthless sources for a generalist encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. We can't use https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/poxel (deprecated). CrunchBase is not an acceptable source because it's user-generated content. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/poxel-sumitomo-dainippon-pharma-announce-063000394.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release from Businesswire (which only ever publishes same). I cannot assess your last source because it is missing critical bibliographical information (Outlet, edition, byline, page(s).) Of the sources I can assess, three of them are flat-out unusable, and one is written at the company's dictate. Disregarding the article text, this is absolutely fatal for a draft.

but I would like to have more information concerning the sources accepted on wikipedia. what are the steps to follow to put good sources please? Thank you


Pro75008 (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pro75008: The sort of sources you're looking for are: Les Echos, and PM Live. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:05, 18 October 2021 review of submission by 117.222.161.162


117.222.161.162 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Why are you continuesly declining biography Article.Firstly i did all you told.i studied references and edited my mistakes (wrong photo i uesd it was totally mistake.i understand it.but i solved it and added correct reference based things.so i provided material names i used for creating such biography of person lived in 19th CE.why are you deleting my article after added reference?what is the reason? i request you kindly ,what i needed to improve on this article?[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft is completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- it's good to go into the process with some experience and knowledge first, both by editing existing articles, reviewing some of the help pages like referencing for beginners, and using the new user tutorial(which you need an account for, though). Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:28, 18 October 2021 review of draft by JMFranklin


I wrote the Ryan Beat page to mirror Jimmie Johnson and other professional race car drivers. Yet, it was declined because it, "read like an ad." I'm at a loss as to what to change. The names of race tracks are often preceded by a sponsor name and the proper way to refer to a driver's race car/truck is to include the title sponsor. I've cited 33 sources that identify Ryan Beat as a professional race car driver as well. Any direction on what exactly needs to be changed would be welcomed. Again, I followed the exact format of other professional race car drivers so not sure how they got approved by Ryan's page did not. Thank you in advance for your feedback.

JMFranklin (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMFranklin Wikipedia prefers fewer high-quality sources rather than a large number of poor quality sources. You have lots of citations for race results and mentions of him, but not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him personally. Please also review the definition of a notable race car driver to ensure that he meets it. I fear that given your conflict of interest you may be too close to Mr. Beat to be able to objectively write about him, summarizing independent sources with significant coverage(not just race results). 331dot (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. When I review the "notable race car driver" list, Mr. Beat meets all these requirements. Also, I have cited large motorsports sources such as OffRoad.com, RACER magazine (one of the largest racing magazines in the U.S.), Four Wheeler, and Race-Dezert. I also cited that Mr. Beat appeared in the Fast & Furious 7 movie along with a commercial for international tire brand, General Tire. What else would I need to provide to demonstrate that he is a professional race car driver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMFranklin I didn't say he was not notable, but often newer editors do not review the notability definition. The main reason for the decline of the draft, is, as you noted, the fact that it seems like an advertisement. I would take the three sources with the most coverage of Mr. Beat and summarize what they say- the race results and stuff can be added later. You will need to do that while setting aside everything that you know about him. The personal life section is completely unsourced. Appearances in film productions and ads do not contribute to notability(unless you are also arguing he is a notable actor), as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:20:47, 18 October 2021 review of submission by 76.100.26.83


Asking for advice as to how this could get any more notable?

76.100.26.83 (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:58:10, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jennvirskus


Hi! I would love some help with getting this draft in the correct tone of Wikipedia. I've been diligent not to put anything in the draft that was not cited, either from a widely known news publication or from a science journal. (And I've fixed the doi's that were incorrectly added.) I would be thrilled for a 3rd party to take a look and put in any edits that are required.

Thank you!

Jennvirskus (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennvirskus The tone is decent, although it uses WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:WEASEL words occasionally. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:07, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Sidhudiid


Sidhudiid (talk) 17:55, 18 October 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) 17:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:01, 18 October 2021 review of submission by Dinercouch


Dinercouch (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twas rejected meaning it won't be considered further and it has been repeatedly recreated by socks and is now page protected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:54:57, 18 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Cabm.2020


Hi,

The page for Maria Gloria Dominguez was rejected due to unreliable sources. Majority of the resources were deleted -- they took a lot of time to input so that was not the greatest thing to have to do.

These are the comments:


Submission declined on 16 March 2021 by EDG 543 (talk). [resolved in my opinion] The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by EDG 543 7 months ago. AFC-Logo Decline.svg Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Probably notable (holding a named chair likely meets WP:NPROF), but referencing needs to be improved, especially as many sections are unsupported, which is a problem for any article and in particular for WP:BLPs. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Once the sourcing issues are fixed, this should pass WP:PROF both for heavily cited publications and for the named professorship. For this criterion, independence can be relaxed (but reliability cannot): for instance, the official web site of Rutgers (not her personal pages) can be considered reliable for matters like her job title there. However, claims that go beyond such factual matters for instance by saying things about the impact of her research do need to be independent, and every claim in the draft needs a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC) {resolved} Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Both of your provided references are primary sources. Please find reliable independent sources in order to establish her notability. See WP:REFB for more on citing sources. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you suggest how to improve the page to get approval? What is wrong with the sources?

Thanks


Cabm.2020 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cabm.2020, The article will be approved if you add independent sources. Independent sources include media mentions and articles. Primary sources, such as publications written by the subject and university staff lists are not enough. Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY. Eternal Shadow Talk 22:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

04:53:38, 19 October 2021 review of draft by Tylermelnyk


Jyoti Gondek was just elected Mayor of Calgary. Why am I being restricted from editing her page? This woman requires extensive editing to her wiki now that she is mayor elect. I was hoping to do that work but its being denied. What? Why? Tylermelnyk (talk) 04:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tylermelnyk The draft has been accepted. I do not understand why you state that you are being restricted from editing the page. As far as I can see you have all the rights to edit one would expect for an editor in good standing FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:18:48, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Scootbilly

Requesting re-review. Incorrect template usage. Please use {{connected contributor (paid)}} instead. Scootbilly (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scootbilly I have done this, and left a comment on the draft. As a paid editor you are held to a substantial standard and are expected to understand our policies precisely because you are paid. Please learn them and then yiou are welcome to write a brand new draft which complies. I see no reason to overturn the rejection of this draft. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:58, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Yogendra singh Samar


Yogendra singh Samar (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:08, 19 October 2021 review of submission by LeoRathu


LeoRathu (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LeoRathu Your draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself. Please use social media instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:35, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Yogendra singh Samar


Yogendra singh Samar (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogendra singh Samar Your draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote yourself. Please use social media instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 08:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:23:52, 19 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bennair


Thank you for the opportunity. I am new to this platform and the style of writing. I tried submitting a company page with language as neutral as possible but it still got rejected. I even used external media links but to no help. Will appreciate the assistance.


Bennair (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bennair Wikipedia does not have "company pages", not one. It has articles about companies, typically written by independent editors. Those editors write about topics that they take note of in independent reliable sources with significant coverage, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case, that of a notable company. If you have an association with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
Your draft is completely unsourced, and reads like an entry in a directory of companies. Wikipedia is not a directory, but an encyclopedia. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:54:57, 19 October 2021 review of draft by Riteshkumarbhanu


Riteshkumarbhanu (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riteshkumarbhanu You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the opportunity. I am new to this platform and the style of writing this please help us to publish this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riteshkumarbhanu (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Riteshkumarbhanu Who is "us"? There should only be one person operating your account. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a person and their accomplishments. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing a new article is the most challenging task to undertake on Wikipedia, and it's good to first gain experience by editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial and reading Your First Article helps as well.
If you have an association with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:25:38, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Neelmohapatra


Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi, This is an old university and its founder is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. also We tried to post complete correct information which is independent. Then why this article has got this content disproved.

Neelmohapatra Please see your user talk page for important information. I would refer you to my comments on the draft, as well as those in the messages declining it. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something or its offerings, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. The sources offered do not seem to be independent. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded on the user page. When will this article be approved now? Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelmohapatra For further comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The draft will not be accepted until it does as I have mentioned previously, here and on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand what are you saying? Neelmohapatra (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neelmohapatra You are creating a new section of this page with every edit you make; this is unnecessary. Please edit this existing section. If you are using the mobile version of Wikipedia or the app, these do not have full functionality and make it harder to do that- please use the full desktop version in a browser, even if on a phone or tablet. This will allow you to see the "edit" in the section header of this section or at the top of this page, so you can avoid creating additional sections.
Regarding the draft, please review the comments by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:53, 19 October 2021 review of submission by 2405:204:1290:84F0:0:0:D2:18A0


2405:204:1290:84F0:0:0:D2:18A0 (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:35, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Robayet7


Robayet7 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robayet7 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. You cannot resubmit it. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:27, 19 October 2021 review of submission by Abm1994

I have two references for Prashna page . Can you add and do something with the page https://www.mymovies.it/ondemand/uiff/movie/9721-prashna/ https://www.unicef.it/media/unicef-innocenti-film-festival-a-firenze-la-seconda-edizione-della-rassegna-di-ci/

Abm1994 (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:44, 19 October 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ

The trailer for the new Diary of a Wimpy Kid movie just dropped today. Here's the link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKhCPUa-glo

ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the trailer was released changes nothing- once the film is released, it will be notable. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:19:45, 19 October 2021 review of draft by 00sClassicGamerFan


My submission got rejected even though I have a source to back it up. Where can I write about it?

My submission got rejected even though there’s a reliable source to back it up. Is a book not a reliable source?

00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 00sClassicGamerFan. In Articles for creation parlance, the draft was declined, which allows improvement and re-submission, not rejected, which is final.
  • The topic requires multiple sources to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article).
  • Whether a book is a reliable source depends on more than the fact that it's a book. Non-fiction books written by scholars and published by academic presses or major mainstream publishers are preferred. The authors of Top Gear Christmas are a film writer, novelist, and television producer known for their comedy work. The publisher, BBC Books, is a sister concern to the company that produced the television programme which is the main topic of the book, Top Gear. The purpose of the book is to promote the series, so it is not independent of it. Whether it would be a reliable source about Donko would depend on what it actually says about it and in what context, but it seems unlikely to be reliable.
  • Even if it is reliable, it may not contain significant enough coverage of Donko to count as a source that supports notability. It doesn't help if the game is mentioned in a single sentence or paragraph, but might be considered significant if there are several paragraphs or a whole page about the game.
--Worldbruce (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October 20

02:51:11, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Dottee

I'd love to know if articles can be published without several independent sources. The article I wish to write does not have many outside sources to reference for information, only the substantial amount in the two available. Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Dottee (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dottee. No, they can't. What an organization has to say about itself belongs on that organization's webpage, not in Wikipedia. We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization. Multiple sources are generally expected, to show sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and to ensure we aren't parroting a single point of view on the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:13:16, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xland44


Hi, when editing Draft:Jim Swan, I accidentally included multiple citations to the same site. Is there some way to merge citations? Xland44 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xland44: Yes, by using named references you can cite the same source in several places in the article without having it repeated in the list of references. Here is how to do it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:05, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Xiaofeng93


I have made proper changes based on feedback from the editor, but still not sure if meets the full requirment.

Can I seek help to have a pre-review before re-submit?

Xiaofeng93 (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xiaofeng93: Sure. Glancing over it, not a single reliable source jumps out, and I see a lot of really terrible ones: wikitia, Crunchbase, prnewswire, and coindesk, for example. Considering this and Wikipedia's general sanctions on blockchain and cryptocurrency-related articles, I think it's safe to say Wikipedia will never publish an article on this subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:17, 20 October 2021 review of draft by ResetK


To whom it may concern,

I have created the article on PROJECT MOD, which is under development by NEXON KOREA. The article has been rejected three times for the reason the article does not cover significant, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Since the platform is in its early stage, I took a look at the Project TL article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_TL - as a reference. Should I add more lines to the article? Or do I ask to put more references? Do please kindly revise how can I develop the article to publish it.

Best, ResetK

ResetK (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ResetK. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and low quality ones. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to use Wikipedia's best, not Project TL.
Businesswire is a press release, so not independent. MMOs.com's three sentences do not constitute significant coverage. Techbeezer.com is incoherent. It reads like a bad machine translation of a press release. YouTube is a generally unreliable source, and material published there by Project MOD is not independent. The Nexon website is not independent. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft referemces zero sources like that. If there are no such sources because the platform is in its early stage, then wait a few years until the platform is more mature. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:59, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Sucker for All

Am confused by a purported lack of "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It certainly is just not a passing mention in any of the 6 sources (more similar sources are readily available), and she's, in truth, viewed by millions of people for at least an hour a week on the biggest news station in the world. Do we have specific precedents for the viability of the various sources in question? Fox News is considered viable per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources (she was previously with ABC), whereas the others include 1. allstarbio 2. thewhoisbio 3. thefamousinfo 4. profilespedia 5. factsbuddy . A comment on each sources purported lack of reliability would be in order. others that *could* be used include a. goldencelebrities b. fact-pedia c. marriedceleb d. wikiage e. glamourpath f. starsgab g. factsbio h. bio-peida i. wealthyspy j. chandigarhfirst k. xycinews l. biographyhoses m. arealnews n. informationflare o. celebpie p. marriedwiki q. theparadise r. factualhub s. yankeetv t. b.wikiage u. popcreep v. thecelebinfo w. nypost (in passing @ https://nypost.com/2010/05/10/miss-usa-contestants-in-their-undies/ in 2010) x. thewhoisbio y. muzu.tv z. expioreceleb, in addition to many many other articles. All are independent of the subject matter and, other than the nypost, not one is just a mention in passing. How do we get this published? Which of the above sources is considered more and less reliable than others? All sources here seem to flow similarly to snopes.. Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Sucker for All (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sucker for All You appear to have a misunderstanding of the term Reliable Sources. The references you have chosen are not considered reliable secondary sources. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both nypost and Fox News are considered reliable. And she's literally On Fox News at least 1 hour per day delivering live news. All 31 sources listed are considered unreliable? More are easily visible in a Google search of her name.. Sucker for All (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All A Fox News bio of one of their team is a Primary Source. The other references you have used are not of any use at all since they are not reliable. Your do not seem to have used nypost as a reference. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: According to WP:RS/PS, nypost is a generally unreliable source. Fox News is sometimes reliable, sometimes unreliable, depending on context. Fox News is her employer, however, so it is not an independent source about her. They have an incentive to promote her. Your list of 31 sources is about as trashy a set of sources as it's possible to name. They're so bad that it's hard to believe you're serious in suggesting them. Being a news anchor, regardless of time on air or channel, does not make a person notable. Being written about in independent reliable sources is what makes one notable. See Peter Jennings or Marjory Stoneman Douglas for examples of reliable sources for information about news anchors and journalists. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce:, did you read the article? I don't actually use the nypost link. I use 8 of the 31 mentioned links, none of which are considered unreliable according to official wiki guidelines.. Sucker for All (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She's literally hosting Fox News' Fox & Friends First right now.. It *might* be a question of me not demonstrating notability, but she's clearly notable Sucker for All (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: It is a question of not demonstrating notability, since there is nothing in the draft to show why she would be considered notable. There are six references in the draft. One is the primary source from Fox News, the other five are nowhere near reliable. A good rule of thumb is that any website where a biographical article has a title approximating "Height, weight, age, relationships, wealth" is not going to be a reliable source. In theory, there might be exceptions to that, but these five are in fact useless. You only need to take a very quick look at them to determine that, and if you read the sources more closely you will notice that they even re-use the same phrasing. No idea who churns out these worthless "bio" sites (and that is another reason we can't use them), but I'm guessing it is a lucrative business. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, she's Definitely notable. 5 other sources, in addition to an official bio by FNC, none of which are really very different than, say, Snopes were proposed. I understand that the list of proposed sources was extensive and not explicity mentioned for notability here; however, glamourpath, starsgab, factsbio, bio-peida, wealthyspy, chandigarhfirst, xycinews, arealnews, informationflare, factualhub and yankeestv are just Among the sources that discuss her and her career . The problem I have with characterization of her lack of notability is that people aren't writing about her. All of the people mentioned above are though. "A good rule of thumb is that any website where a biographical article has a title approximating 'Height, weight, age, relationships, wealth' is not going to be a reliable source" does not appear at WP:BIO nor at WP:RS/PS nor at WP:Reliable Sources. Still others include newson, nexttv or either this https://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/local/kmiz-reporter-and-anchor-to-join-fox-news/article_2359c174-5273-11ea-9a22-93909c8ccd25.html or https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/kmiz-tv-anchor-ashley-strohmier-will-join-fox-news-as-overnight-anchor-and-news-correspondent/430603/ . I could ask in more detail at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if that would be productive? Sucker for All (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:56, 20 October 2021 review of draft by Ethixgrrl


Following comment by Wingwatchers have updated the article, but would appreciate guidance as to where the peacock terms are and to improve tone so it meets requirements? Previous comments had not mentioned inappropriate tone so would be grateful for assistance. In response to a previous comment, more references have been included from independent and reliable sources including national media and the UK government website. Many thanks in advance for your help!

Ethixgrrl (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:06, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Will Morland


Will Morland (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will Morland You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:52:54, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Kulasperes


Kulasperes (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kulasperes The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulasperes: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Watch this space. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulasperes: Please refer to the top table here and get some coffee. This will take some time.
The bulk of your sources are to her appearances on Tawag ng Tanghalan/It's Showtime and disrespectfully perfunctory summaries of same. This in and of itself tends to be an argument against notability, on the grounds that a person who is only really notable for appearing on a reality show or talent competition is little different from a person whose only claim to fame is they videotaped a Black man being beaten by police, and thus the article on the person should redirect to the article on the season they appeared in or (if that doesn't exist) to the article on the show proper. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:33, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syafikrie


Syafikrie (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Syafikrie The button. says "Ask for Advice". Our telepathy interface is currently down for maintenance, but will be back online in 2097. Rather than waiting until then please ask your question FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:22, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Djscamper


Hi, I just change the wording on the page to help avoid any copyright issues.

I also linked in articles about Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation.

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Djscamper (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:27, 20 October 2021 review of submission by Syedanustanweer


Syedanustanweer (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Syedanustanweer You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please use social media to tell the world about yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

04:07:00, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jacktenaya


Hello! I tried submitting an article to a local historical business in my city. Why was it declined?

Jacktenaya (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Morrison's Jewelers
@Jacktenaya: One source that hardly talks about the business is not going to be enough to justify an article. Note that we do accept offline sources, if properly cited. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:30:51, 21 October 2021 review of draft by 2A01:E35:39FE:EA00:C873:33C:1F63:7E66


My submission was declined, on the grounds of "reading like an advertisement." I am unsure which portion of the draft this refers to and have tried to add external links to reference all information, so I am requesting to know what changes, deletions, or improvements can I make to the draft in order for the submission to be approved ? 2A01:E35:39FE:EA00:C873:33C:1F63:7E66 (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advertisement because it just tells about TheFork and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offer simply report the routine business activities of the company, this does not establish notability.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:22:30, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jomafa


I have made some corrections, and edited some words, I believe my page is qualified and would be glad if given a page on Wikipedia. Jomafa (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:34, 21 October 2021 review of draft by HorribleHistories1992


Need help making this article, found a credible British activist who does not appear on Wikipedia. Draft:Nigel Bromage


HorribleHistories1992 (talk) 09:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HorribleHistories1992 I've reviewed your draft and left some advice there. I've fixed your link above, the whole URL is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:57:25, 21 October 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by HorribleHistories1992

Article Creation
I would like help to create and finish this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nigel_Bromage so that it can be approved. I have no experience with article creation and the sources are there, but format is wrong. Any help here in creating this article is appreciated.


HorribleHistories1992 (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be much easier to do if you switched to WP:VE. In the editor, there's a pencil icon at the top right and you can switch there to Visual Editor. Place the cursor where you want the ref, then click cite. The references will be automatically completed after you paste the URL in the box. Gorden 2211 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, don't use the Daily Mail, see WP:DAILYMAIL and don't create a new section for every reply. Gorden 2211 (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:28, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Jomafa

I have made corrections, please what could be the challenge? Jomafa (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jomafa The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:24, 21 October 2021 review of submission by Marveldccomicsfan

hi, what can i do to make my article request accepted as it has been declined a few times. is there something wrong with it or? Marveldccomicsfan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marveldccomicsfan There is nothing you can do- the draft was rejected. No amount of editing can confer notability. The vast majority of fictional characters do not merit articles. Only characters that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources merit articles. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:00, 21 October 2021 review of draft by Tabatha Adchoir

Hi, I'm trying to figure out what qualifies as reliable Source for my Artist References. For example, the first Article referenced, by Ricardito for SoulTracks Magazine, which has a Wikipedia Entry itself seems reliable to me as it is an unbiased and non-promotional review by a well known genre defined Magazine. The Article by Mentalunrest.com named Aural Dive is another umbiased review, but reliable I'm the sense that Mentalunrest is a well known and visited Arts-Review Website. I guess trying to figure out which References I should keep and which to delete, as maybe some lesser known websites don't qualify. Thank you for your help.

Tabatha Adchoir (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabatha Adchoir: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth third-party source that corroborates it or (if no source can be found for that claim) removed. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. Your issue isn't the quality of sources - it's that you have far too few. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jēskē, Thanks for your response, I think I'm slowly getting the picture. I guess my real question is how does an independent Artist get to have an Article if he doesn't have Prime Coverage? If a respected Site like SoulTracks, which has a Wiki Entry and a worldwide Audience of about 250k monthly doesn't qualify as a reliable source then the chances become slim. If unbiased Album Reviews by well known Music Blogs don't count, though the Independent Music Industry relies on them, even slimmer. So how does one let the world know of the existence of this Artist, thats clearly been consistently putting out Material for over 10 years now? Should he be advised to sign a Label Deal and get a Billboard Magazine Article first? Thanks for your Help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabatha Adchoir (talk • contribs) 06:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tabatha Adchoir Wikipedia has no interest in helping or harming anyione's career. Advice is not given on ways of promoting one's self to be able, at some future time, to meet our notability criteria. A subject is either notable in a wikipedia sense or it is not FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 07:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Tabatha Adchoir. "Let the world know of the existence of this Artist" is a goal that is antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia, which may not be used for any type of publicity, promotion, or public relations. If getting the word out about him is your objective, you may wish to explore alternative outlets for your writing. Encyclopedias, being tertiary sources, don't contain biographies of people the world at large hasn't already taken significant notice of.
Wikipedia gauges this attention not by how long a person has worked or how prolific they've been, but by how much has been written about them in independent, reliable, secondary sources. SoulTracks writes as much about an artist as they're willing to pay for; they are neither independent nor reliable. Self-published blogs are reliable only for the opinion of the author. They don't help demonstrate notability except in the rare case of professional music critics who have previously been published in reliable sources. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources contains a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music. Billboard is on that list, but so are many others. --Worldbruce (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

10:24:54, 22 October 2021 review of draft by 213.247.64.246


I need information about the Orthodox filakto, and Wikipedia doesn't (seem to) have any. So I made a page - a stub - in the hope that anyone will fill it in. It is a draft, named Filakto (Orthodox). The filakto is very common, so I am sure lots of people will have information on it. Can I publish my stub in the hope to attract authors? I was looking for information, and then got the option to request page creation - that already means that I am not the proper person to provide that information..

213.247.64.246 (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit your draft for review in order for it to be considered. IP users(and new accounts) cannot directly create articles. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:40, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Kacperbeski


Hello,

Thank you for your review. Since the article has been declined , I would really appreciate it if you could tell me a little bit more in terms of ways to improve it. I have only received vague comment saying that the article reads more as an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. I have been researching this person through internet and common friends and would appreciate you pointing out which parts should be changed.

Thank you and all the best,

Kacper

Kacperbeski (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:18, 22 October 2021 review of submission by 204.18.51.131


204.18.51.131 (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Really I do not know how to edit my article to be accepted by Wikipedia! Is there anybody to edit this article?

Best regards, Kiumars Zamani

Hello Kiumars Zamani, this is your first edit under this IP. If you use an account to edit, please remember to login before posting. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:26, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Kozdra108


Kozdra108 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kozdra108 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:25, 22 October 2021 review of submission by JulieFr

To create a page about the French mathematician Maurice Marcel Clerc, my model was the one about his colleague and friend James Kennedy. They worked together for many years on Particle Swarm Optimization, and wrote together an IEEE awarded paper. Actually J. Kennedy said once that the contribution of M. Clerc to this topic was more important than his own. So I do not really understand why my submission has been rejected. Please tell me how I can improve it.JulieFr (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC) JulieFr (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JulieFr: I assume this refers to User:JulieFr/sandbox - if so, you accidentially had overwritten the draft with an (almost) blank page), causing Theroadislong to decline it as a test. I have recovered the previous draft contents from the page history. However, before you attempt to resubmit this for review, you should add a your sources, in the form of inline citations (click this link to find out what this is and how its done), which is mandatory when writing about living people. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:49, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Adityasharma131313

I am aditya raj sharma also known as aditya raj vashishth . I am an author of book imposior. Adityasharma131313 (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. Please note that writing about yourself is strongely discouraged, as people naturally write more favourable about themselves. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:33, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Prathamesh Tiparkar


Prathamesh Tiparkar (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prathamesh Tiparkar You don't ask a question, but you submitted your user page as an article. Your user page is a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only. It is not a social media style page. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. As such, the vast majority of people do not merit articles. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:49, 22 October 2021 review of draft by Forich


I created the draft for Karoll Marquez a few weeks ago and submitted it for review.

One reviewer responded that:

Nothing shows notability here, there appears to be no coverage on the athlete in reliable, secondary sources (YouTube cannot be cited). The television he is "known for" doesn't appear to be notable either, as the shows themselves don't yet have an article.

.

I have read the review, and improved the draft in the following ways:

  1. The article is not about an athlete, as the reviewer interpreted, Marquez is an actor and singer
  2. There are now two reliable secondary sources on the draft: Revista Semana and El Tiempo, both very reputable news sources in Colombia
  3. Many of the television shows he has acted in now have wiki links to their pages. Oye Bonita links to english wikipedia, the others link to spanish wikipedia
  4. The song Mentira links to an english wikipedia entry
  5. At least two works of Marquez then have their own entry in English wikipedia, with many more having an alone entry in the spanish project

Please comment on whether this changes have improved the draft Pinging @Clearfrienda: as well.

Forich (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Forich: Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
I am uncomfortable saying whether or not the sources work for notability given the two sources I cannot assess. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:28, 22 October 2021 review of submission by Navnine9


Navnine9 (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Mansi Choksi

Hi everyone,

I wrote a draftthat was declined because of the question of notability in independent sources. I've added new links to show that Choksi was named a global influencer by the UN Foundation, profiled for her work in an independent Indian magazine, named a star contributor for VICE magazine and received several awards for her work from New York University, Fulbright Program, Wallace House and International Women's Media Foundation.

Does this sound like it addresses the problem?

Thanks so much for your time.

--Navnine9 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get some coffee, refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode, and watch this space; this is going to be a minute. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Navnine9: Here is my source assessment.
Even if the awards do help for notability, the problem is that with an article like this you are beholden to two policies for an article: Notability and WP:Biographies of living persons. It is both possible and very probable, especially in this instance, that you can meet one but fail the other. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there,

Thanks so much for spending the time and energy to walk me through this. I think I understand the distinction now and went ahead and added appropriate links that I believe better establish Choksi's notability.

I'll sum it up here:

1. https://opcofamerica.org/Awardarchive/the-madeline-dane-ross-award-2018/ An award that describes her work and presented at an award ceremony hosted by a CBS anchor and uploaded to the official OPC site.

2.NYU Journalism Reporting Award: Arthur Carter Institute

3. https://medium.com/the-coalition-for-women-in-journalism/mansi-choksi-represents-cfwij-at-article-19-mexico-ad54f5d895a This article sums up a public speech she gave in Mexico about her work in journalism.

4. https://www.iwmf.org/reporting/a-chance-to-rewrite-history-the-women-fighters-of-the-tamil-tigers/

5. https://longreads.com/2017/12/22/the-top-5-longreads-of-the-week-201/ Her story has been picked as the top 5 long reads.

6. https://wallacehouse.umich.edu/2018-livingston-award-finalists-announced/ I changed the link to Wallace House to show that she was a finalist for the most prestigious award for journalists under 35.

I'll look forward to your thoughts.

Thanks once again!!!

October 23

02:37:58, 23 October 2021 review of draft by 93.183.169.165


93.183.169.165 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but does it involve adding project tags? 331dot (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections and updates

09:08:17, 23 October 2021 review of draft by Fjoan


Hello. I request help on this article, because I'm struggling with the "cite your sources using footnotes", to meet the minimum standard for the inline citations. I also add some few more references because those were the reasons why the article was declined for the moment. I read and documented my self in the footnotes and citations section, but I still can't figure it out. I put a lot of work on this article and documented my self for it and I really need straight help to get it done. Appreciate, many love. Joan

Fjoan (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1051423207"