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 Parthyadav51 (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 4 December 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


November 27

05:47:01, 27 November 2021 review of submission by JohnFerro


JohnFerro (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]



I believe I made appropriate changes to be in compliance. All I am trying to accomplish is to start a biography page.

JohnFerro Wikipedia does not have "biography pages", it has articles. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please review the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of (in this case) a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what a person wants to say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:47, 27 November 2021 review of draft by Wcsneel


Hi, I would like to contribute to one of the hospitals in Malaysia. Thus I need to have the map of this hospital to be in the article, but I'm not sure how to do that, I'm still in the midst of drafting the article. is someone is able to guide me through how to embed map from Open Street Map to the Wikipedia page? Thank you very much!

I've looked into so many recommendations but I'm still confused. I already have an account on Open Street Map, what is the next step? If Wikidata is necessary, how to link OSM to Wiki data? Very appreciate it for my future reference.

Wcsneel (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about the map for now and focus on proving the hospital is notable first. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:03, 27 November 2021 review of submission by Happily888

Hi, a draft I created on this reality television contestant was recently declined by a reviewer, with the comment that "contestants in reality television shows are generally considered non-notable", however, I haven't found any evidence of this in the notability guidelines which I was directed to. Instead, I believe that there is significant coverage included within the article and that it qualifies under the guidelines from WP:ENT, having had significant roles in multiple notable…television series. It would be helpful if someone would re-review this draft article or would clarify why reality series contestants are considered non-notable. Happily888 (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, we don't consider reality TV contestants to be notable by virtue of their reality TV appearances, treating it as WP:BLP1E at best (considering there are cases where reality TV contestants have had their off-show lives disrupted as a consequence of their behaviour on reality shows, which are designed specifically to provoke personal conflict writ large, and most of these contestants are people who do expect a modicum of privacy after the show is over, especially if they left under health-related non-gameplay eliminations). We need to see evidence they have been talked about in media outside of the context of the reality show. Also, "multiple television series" means different shows altogether, not different seasons/series of the same programme. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Happily888: (re-signing for ping, I need caffeine) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 18:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thanks for your reply! This has been helpful, however, I still think that the draft article shows the significance and notability of the individual, exceeding WP:BLP1E, with media providing coverage outside of the context of the reality show and satisfying appearances in multiple television series (in both Australian Survivor, its spin-off companion show Australian Survivor: Talking Tribal and Big Brother VIP). Happily888 (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:49, 27 November 2021 review of submission by 2409:4042:2D99:8ED5:4122:A08:9DEB:DA00


2409:4042:2D99:8ED5:4122:A08:9DEB:DA00 (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Siddhant Ghegadmal Hai is an Indian actor and model whose imdb references are given you check

16:26:38, 27 November 2021 review of submission by A cute wikipedian

dafuq A cute wikipedian (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. We'd want to see professional reviews of the Roblox game in order to justify an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:55, 27 November 2021 review of submission by Spearlmorg

This is a resume of someone, he want it publish in Wikipedia because of it wider coverage and large audience. Since am new to publishing in Wikipedia I have to seek for help to accomplish the task. Spearlmorg (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spearlmorg Wikipedia is not for posting resumes. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Please use social media to post resumes. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:02, 27 November 2021 review of submission by 94.24.87.47

He is famous and notable. He is z filmmaker not an actor so... 94.24.87.47 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. People are not notable because you say is, they are if they pass WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:43, 27 November 2021 review of submission by 89.47.129.158

According to the blow Wikipedia article Qmars Mootab is really notable unless you don't follow your rules. Qmars Mootab is the best world one-shot film award winner and he created the best "actual" one-shot film of history what can he probably does to be considered as "notable" please spend sometimes and do a proper research instead of just rejecting: Creative professionals "WP:AUTHOR" redirects here. For information about the authorship of Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content. "WP:Notability (artists)" redirects here. For the failed proposal, see Wikipedia:Notability (artists) (failed proposal). Shortcuts WP:ARCHITECT WP:ARTIST WP:AUTHOR WP:CREATIVE WP:ECONOMIST WP:FILMMAKER WP:DIRECTOR WP:JOURNALIST WP:POET Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums


89.47.129.158 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here to have a moan, please do not bother. Just prove that your topic passes WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:13, 27 November 2021 review of submission by Billr1965


I've added quite a bit of content to the submission. I'd like to make as many people aware of Depressed Anonymous as it can help with depression and prevent suicide.

Billr1965 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billr1965 While your objective is laudable, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. The draft is considered on its merits, not on your laudable objective. The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billr1965 Regrettably it was also a copyright violation and will be deleted. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 22:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

10:03:33, 28 November 2021 review of submission by 103.212.144.60


103.212.144.60 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The vast majority of "YouTubers" do not merit articles. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:20, 28 November 2021 review of submission by Harryf20006


Harryf20006 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what would make it suitable?

Harryf20006 Nothing. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about something that you created one day. If the New York Times or BBC choose on their own to write about your micronation, maybe then. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:52, 28 November 2021 review of submission by Missmilicas

Hi. I would like to know why have you rejected the page I created. I planned on editing it some more by adding pictures and more reliable sources, but it's important for me to get a better understanding of your policies, preferences, and why it's not approved whatsoever. Thank you for your time. Missmilicas (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missmilicas: Your sourcing is not acceptable for an article about a living or recently-departed person. See Help:Referencing for beginners and WP:Reliable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

04:50:58, 29 November 2021 review of submission by Media vision film


Media vision film (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked for promotion and username. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:28, 29 November 2021 review of submission by Milimigu

Hi! I am trying to publish these two pages on Jack Ferris and his most notable invention. They got rejected because I don't have sources to cite. That's because the main source is that this information was given by his daughter, who sent it to me and requested I publish it on wikipedia. How do I make that clear? Or is it impossible to do so?

Milimigu (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Milimigu Wikipedia summarizes what published independent reliable sources state about a topic, demonstrating how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you have no sources, the subject cannot be on Wikipedia. If you or this person's daughter just want to tell the world about him and his invention, you should use social media, a personal website, or other website with less stringent inclusion requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:45, 29 November 2021 review of submission by Anikaparekh16

I submitted a draft for review. While, submitting I was told that my draft does not include any references and therefore might get rejected. However, I am writing about a subject close to me. She is a public figure and all the content i have entered on the draft has been attested by her. There are no references on the internet about her personal information. Anikaparekh16 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anikaparekh16, "There are no references on the internet about her personal information" - if this is the case (and on the assumption there are also no references in offline publications such as old books and magazines), the information should not be put on Wikipedia AT ALL. Please read the biography of living persons policy carefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:50, 29 November 2021 review of draft by Moores10


I have now resolved this issue

Moores10 (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moores10 If you are sure the issue is resolved it is recommended that you submit the draft for review. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:58, 29 November 2021 review of submission by Njabulo Mlondo

Good day

I trust this text find you well. I am writing this to kindly request assistance on how to properly write this article in a standardized way that comply with the guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia. I have written this article and so far I have not seen any error made however I would like to be pointed into a right direction by being guided by the professional from the Wikipedia Team, so that I will be able to rectify my mistake and edit this article in a way way that is aligned with standardized guidelines set by Wikipedia.

I hope my request will be granted Njabulo Mlondo (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of your sources are Apple Music/iTunes, which we don't cite under any circumstance (Online storefront). The rest of your sources are absolutely no better, with none of them being usable (The closest source to usable is sahiphopmag, which has no byline and is unusable on that basis alone (unknown provenance)). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:18, 29 November 2021 review of submission by Hedman1


Hedman1 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, after revising the draft for the pagename above as well as cleaning up and adding more appropriate references, I am wondering why the page is still not viable to publish. Thanks very much! Hedman1

20:17:12, 29 November 2021 review of submission by And Adoil Descended

I did a first draft of this article one month ago and it was turned down. I did a rewrite, but I have yet to get any feedback on my effort. Can someone please take a look at my draft to see if it works? Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@And Adoil Descended I'm sure someone will get to it in due course. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:35, 29 November 2021 review of draft by WalksInWelcome


Hello,

I’m writing in response to the rejection of my submission for Draft:B. Riley Financial. Thank you to Salimfadhley for reviewing this so quickly.

According to Salimfadhley, the problem lies with my footnotes, which don’t (1) show significant coverage and (2) appear in reliable sources. Please allow me to offer counterpoints.

(1) Here are several profiles of B. Riley in the submission:

(a) "Brokerage B. Riley to Acquire Boutique Bank," Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2003.
(b) "Small Caps Boost B. Riley's Growth," Los Angeles Business Journal, March 7, 2005.
(c) "Small private brokerage B. Riley to go public via merger with property appraiser Great American Group," Los Angeles Business Journal, May 26, 2014.
(d) "B. Riley Is the Top Company Cashing in on the Retail Apocalypse," Yahoo!, March 20, 2020.

Don’t the above links demonstrate more than “passing mentions”?

(2) Of my 26 footnotes, about a third come from trade publications (business journals, for example). Fair point.

At the same time, I also cite articles from the Wall Street Journal (4), CNBC (2), Reuters (2), the Los Angeles Times (1), Bloomberg (1), and Business Insider (1).

And here are articles I didn’t include:

(a) "Retail thought it was facing the apocalypse. Then came the coronavirus," Los Angeles Times, April 6, 2020, which says that B. Riley is the “operator of one of the country’s biggest liquidators.”
(b) "B. Riley Expands in IPO Market With FBR," Yahoo!, February 21, 2017, which says that B. Riley has a “dominant position in small-cap investing banking.”

Can we consider these sources — as a whole — to be reliable?

If not, here are a couple of mainstream recognitions the company has won (I know that Wikipedia doesn’t value awards as such, but I’m trying to paint a holistic picture of the company’s media coverage):

(a) "100 Fastest-Growing Companies: B. Riley Financial," Fortune, 2021.
(b) "2021 Most Innovative Companies," ABF Journal, 2021.

While we’re on the subject, let me also offer — both for the footnotes and the notability concerns — a few paragraphs that I didn’t include:

B. Riley also invests in various companies, often taking a minority stake. These companies include Bebe Stores, a women’s retail brand,[1] and Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, an industrial manufacturer.[2]
Through its venture capital arm, the company invests in late-stage startups.[3] These startups include BloomNation, an online marketplace for flowers.[4]
B. Riley invests in the brand licensing of the trademarks of clothing companies.[5] These companies include Catherine Malandrino,[6] Hurley International,[7] Justice,[8] and Nanette Lepore.[6]

Finally, here are three more facts that I believe cement B. Riley’s prominence:

(a) As documented in the draft, the company has $32 billion in assets under management.[9] That’s far above Wikipedia’s informal rule that companies under $1B aren’t notable.
(b) The company is included in both the S&P 600 Component and the NASDAQ Financial-100 Component.
(c) Numerous Wikipedia pages already mention B. Riley, including 299 Park Avenue, NetZero, United Online, Lingo, S&P 600 companies, FBR Capital Markets, and FaZe Clan.

Do we have enough material here for notability?

I’d welcome your thoughts, and I’m grateful for the time you’re spending to review the above details. Thank you very much. WalksInWelcome (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "After dodging bankruptcy, Bebe Stores is ready for its encore". MarketWatch. January 20, 2018. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  2. ^ "Clear Channel Outdoor, Babcock & Wilcox See Activist Action". Barron's. April 2, 2021. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  3. ^ "B. Riley Financial launches B. Riley Venture Capital". S&P Global. October 6, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  4. ^ "BloomNation Raises $11M Series B, Moves Under Umbrella Of Promenade". crunchbase. February 3, 2021. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  5. ^ "B. Riley Launches Fashion Brand Portfolio". San Fernando Valley Business Journal. October 30, 2019. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  6. ^ a b "B. Riley Nabs Retail Brands". Los Angeles Business Journal. November 1, 2019. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  7. ^ "Hurley Acquired by Bluestar Alliance". Apparel News. October 29, 2019. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  8. ^ "B. Riley Financial acquires interest in Justice brand assets". Seeking Alpha. December 2, 2020. Retrieved May 3, 2021.
  9. ^ "B. Riley Financial Reports Third Quarter 2021 Results; Declares $4.00 Dividend". U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. October 28, 2021. Retrieved November 17, 2021.


November 30

01:26:51, 30 November 2021 review of submission by Lwjpnyc


I recently had my second draft rejected and was told that, yes, the person in question is notable and worthy of an article, but "the whole text needs to be wikified."

My first draft was too narrative and lengthy. This second draft seems to be too short with not enough references. All of that I can work on. But what exactly counts as "wikified"? It would be helpful to have a more detailed explanation. I have read enough articles on Wikipedia to have an idea of what I am aiming for but this feedback is not helpful to someone who is not an insider. Could anyone give me some feedback which is less vague and more specific?

Thanks Lwjpnyc (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lwjpnyc (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lwjpnyc I also have no idea what that message means, and cannot see it in the draft.
Your references section is a but unusual. Citations should be at the fact they are citing FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lwjpnyc: The reviewer's advice is true, but may be confusing or distracting to an editor with limited experience, since wikification should have nothing whatsoever to do with what is needed to make the draft acceptable. (@Fiddle Faddle: The sentence "Also, the whole text needs to be wikified", is at the end of Doric Loon's custom decline message.) It's rather like a mechanic telling you your vehicle fails its MOT test, and "also needs a good wash". To better understand wikification, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. From reading other articles, you may have noticed some words in bold, and some words in blue that link to other Wikipedia articles. The rules governing these and many other things are found in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I recommend trying to read the draft from the perspective of someone with a different frame of reference. Would a reader from the UK know what a constitutional lawyer is, what the ACLU is, or what the U.S. Supreme Court is, for instance? Your main concern, however, should be that reviewers are likely to challenge every statement you make about a living person, so cite a reliable source for every fact. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce It was hiding in plain sight. It was also irrelevant in many ways. Thank you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Wikify comment was mine, and was meant to be a helpful additional pointer, but was not the reason for declining the article. Although the degree to which an article has been polished is not the key to the AfC threshold, it is a very good discipline to get into the habit of doing things like writing well and following style and building in wikilinks from the very beginning. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:09:02, 30 November 2021 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:728C


2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:728C (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


https://heragenda.com/tabitha-brown-becomes-the-co-owner-of-vegan-restaurant-kale-my-name

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. One source about a routine business activity like a change in ownership does not help. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:38, 30 November 2021 review of submission by Niteshshah24


Niteshshah24 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC) I have given all refrences and the primary sources. so kindly publish the article.[reply]

Niteshshah24 As you have been told, the draft was rejected and will not be considered any more. You need to move on from this. Your repeated requests are becoming disruptive. If you are a member or representative of this club, please read WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:52, 30 November 2021 review of submission by Wcsneel


Hi, I would like to edit the title of this page to align with the website. This hospital is named Gleneagles Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Also, I would like to change the page name of this URL ： https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleneagles_Kuala_Lumpur to follow the new title Gleneagles_Hospital_Kuala_Lumpur. Please let me know how to do that? If not, can I create a new page and then merge with this page under the new page?

Thank you!

Wcsneel (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wcsneel You may request a page move at Requested Moves. No need to create a new article(not just a "page"). 331dot (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:40:02, 30 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by KingOfMP



KingOfMP (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KingOfMP We're having trouble integrating the current release of the telepathy extension into the software that runs Wikipedia. so your question needs to be in words. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted source of Dainik Bhaskar the leading newspaper of Madhya Pradesh Distirct, India. NEYU are protesting for the right for Students, the news came in Dainik Bhaskar but why not accepted my request??

KingOfMP (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KingOfMP Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. The sources you provided are not appropriate for establishing notability. If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:00, 30 November 2021 review of submission by Moores10

I was just wondering whether you could tell me why this was rejected and if it is to do with sources, what other kinds of secondary sources are needed?

Moores10 (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moores10 It was not rejected. It has been pushed back to you for work. Please read the big pink decline box which tells you what the problem is FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:12:37, 30 November 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jennyjohnscy


May I know why the article has been rejected? Even though If I provide secondary sources. Jennyjohnscy (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennyjohnscy As stated on the draft, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." 331dot (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ankit yadav 529 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:49, 30 November 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December is almost here, and it's been quite a long time since the last submission. Care to review?

ZX2006XZ The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, though? ZX2006XZ (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZX2006XZ If a reviewer rejects a draft, it is because they see little to no chance that the issues can be addressed. The main issue here is that the film is not released, once it is(looks like in January), then come back. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Films may merit articles prior to release. In this case being the 5th sequel of a notable film, it has more chance than most. I've asked over on WT:FILM for someone to take a look.Naraht (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Naraht, If I remember correctly it was rejected by @Robert McClenon: because the people who were writing the draft kept resubmitting the article with no significant changes (or perhaps I'm thinking of the Loud House Movie, which had a similar situation). Bkissin (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. User:Bkissin and User:331dot are right. The submitter, User:ZX2006XZ, persists in resubmitting this draft essentially as is, and the film has not been released. On 12 November I declined the draft again, the fifth decline, and said not to submit it again until it was released. The submitter then resubmitted it on 13 November. I would have nominated the draft for deletion, but it will be notable at the end of January 2022 when it is released. So I instead reported the submitter to WP:ANI and requested a partial block. The submitter then resubmitted it yet again, at which point I rejected it. The submitter appears to be engaging in a breaching experiment, maybe to see what we, the community, do next, or maybe to try to get someone angry enough to resort to profanity and get blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack. But this help desk is a content forum, and this is almost entirely a conduct issue now. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naraht Yes, an unreleased film can merit an article, but there must be something very significant and perhaps unusual about the production of the film for that to be the case. Rust (upcoming film), for example, merits an article because one of the actors accidentally killed someone during the production. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ZX2006XZ: In light of what McClenon says above, I must ask what your connexion to the film and/or its production company or distributor is. Obstinance like this makes it pretty damn obvious you've got some sort of skin in the game. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: I have no connection to any of the studios. I only asked for advice on editing/submitting the draft via the Teahouse. ZX2006XZ (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:27, 30 November 2021 review of submission by Felixflix


Felixflix (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can anybody help me move forward? the draft has been continuously improved. There's plenty of relevant and significant coverage that meet notability criteria. Also other projects importance has been referred and cited with relevant media coverage. Pitchfort, Resident advisor and others. And as TechnoTalk has stated, while it is true that anybody can post music online, not many show a stable 200k+ monthly listeners on this platform. Apart from notable coverage in various media. thank you for your help in advance

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If there is new information that the reviewer did not consider, please discuss that with them directly. Even topics that technically meet the notability criteria do not merit articles if there are not appropriate sources. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:15, 30 November 2021 review of submission by MarshalAndrewBrotherton


MarshalAndrewBrotherton (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December 1

Request on 02:15:45, 1 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Greatder


Need help understanding why Draft:Ethercalc isn't notable enough. I got references from Opensource.com, softwaregarden.com, bricklin.com, aosabook.org, two Chinese refs and Security Boulevard sources.

Greatder (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1- Maybe, though writer says doesnt take self too seriously. Source 2 through 5- all appear connected to company. Source 6 - Not even seeing mention. Source 7 - Interview, not even primary topic. Source 8 - Partner given they are hosting a distribution. Source 9 - github, not independent.
So you have 1 maybe good source and the rest are not independent sources to establish notability. Focus on finding Independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:01, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Khogendrarupini2


Khogendrarupini2 (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)khogendrarupini2[reply]

06:18:50, 1 December 2021 review of draft by Wiki102030


The page created below, was declined due to lack of reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Manta Five references have been already noted, all independent and reliable news publishers + the official website of "Manta" was linked by an "external link" format. Please let me know what more should be done in terms of backing up the facts dealt in the article so that it does not get declined.

Thanks

Wiki102030 (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single source is independent. They are press releases. Slywriter (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:22:43, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Sepehr Mahdavidoost


Sepehr Mahdavidoost (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello dear Wikipedia, help me for publish my article because I need it

We don't host native advertising or any other forms of promotion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:35, 1 December 2021 review of draft by Sjchin


Sjchin (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know why the previous article was rejected by Wikipedia about Akribis Systems.

@Sjchin: Your second source is 404-compliant (it redirects to the homepage of an outlet called "The Japan Herald"), your third is the company itself, the Straits Times source is an interview with a company principal that hardly discusses the company in its extensive lede, your fifth source is redundant, and Arc is M&A news that doesn't help for notability. You have one usable source, which isn't enough to carry any sort of draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Sjchin. If you mean why Draft:Akribis Systems has twice been declined, the reason is that it fails to show that the company is notable, that it has gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time to justify inclusion in the encyclopedia. Novice editors are usually advised to cite at least 3 independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites 1, the article in The Business Times. The remaining sources do nothing to establish notability. Bisouv.com and ARC Advisory Group have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. They are not reliable sources. The company's website and the primary source interview in The Straits Times lack independence; they are reliable support only for uncontroversial facts.
Perhaps you can find a different article in The Straits Times that isn't an interview and provides in-depth information and analysis of the company. Then you would need just one more. I searched 21 ProQuest databases and 25 EBSCO databases, but was unable to find a good third source for you. It's a bad idea to write about a company you work for. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:16, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Anu Natesan


Anu Natesan (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Hi, I tried uploading a biography by the name of "Sivayogi". Why is it declined? What all information has to be provided?[reply]

@Anu Natesan: When you last asked for undeletion you were asked point-blank by an administrator what edits you were going to make as you did nothing when it was undeleted previously. Unless you're actually going to put in the work and effort to write this, any answer I give would be a waste of bytes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:12, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Dizzlephunk


Dizzlephunk (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I am unsure why my page continues to be declined. Can you please pinpoint exactly what I need to do to complete my page properly.

thank you.

I've nominated your userpage for speedy deletion as Wikipedia is not for promoting yourself. Any article created requires reliable, independent sources. Slywriter (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:58, 1 December 2021 review of submission by Oasenn


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chayote

Hi, thank you for reviewing my changes. The reason for decline was, that the written already exists… I am a bit confused because the chapter I have added (Industrial Use) does not yet exist on the Chayote page. I am aware, that the description exists, but I have added information about the size and weight of a single fruit. How can I add this information without posting the whole paragraph again?

Thanks for any help.

Oasenn (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oasenn: This is for help with article drafts. For help with an actual article, start on that article's talk page (in this case, Talk:Chayote). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

08:24:25, 2 December 2021 review of submission by Bannashree250


Bannashree250 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is barely coherent and a long way from an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:15, 2 December 2021 review of submission by 117.212.24.77


117.212.24.77 (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer you to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
I am tagging the draft for speedy deletion as a rather obvious hoax. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:44, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Graemesherriff


Good afternoon, I'm writign this article 'Eaga Charitable Trust' and have had the article rejected a couple of times on the basis of insufficient evidence/citations. The charity did exist (until 2019) and created a substantial 'archive and legacy' website at www.fuelpovertylibrary.info. This is the main source of information about the charity and contains downloadable versions of all of the research outputs over it's 25 year life. There are not a lot of other relevant references, but I have included those that are available - e.g. the closing event in the House of Lords.

Could you advise that more is needed in order for this to be published please?

best wishes

Graeme

Graemesherriff (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graemesherriff A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. An archive of materials put out by the organization is not independent. If no independent sources wrote about this charity, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot for your response. I understand the need for independent references and I will try to locate some more of these. The online library, however, is an archive produced by other organisations (Universities, charities, consultancies) and funded by Eaga Charitable Trust. They are not materials put out by the organisation as such, and the library was produced by a academic team at University of Salford and a reference group consisting of academics working on fuel poverty research. Would changing the text to somehow emphasise the independent nature of the archive website help to make the case for this entry to be published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemesherriff (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the archive itself is independent, but- unless I'm not understanding something correctly- the materials it holds are not. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:36, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Skennedy98


Hello! I thought that I put credible sources in my article but Wiki is saying that they are not. Could you help me know what kind of web source I need to input? It's a professional racing driver. Do you need an announcement stating that he is a driver for a specific team? Or somewhere that shows his official results in a series?

Skennedy98 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:46, 2 December 2021 review of draft by Moores10


The post I am trying to publish has been put under review and I was told that there is not "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Therefore, I was wondering how many attempts I am allowed e.g. if I added in more sources but the problem is seen as not being resolved will it then be deleted?

Also part of the problem in finding corroboratory references for this article is that most references to the subject matter repeat a misleading assertion which can be proven to be false by reference to Companies House records but this cannot be referenced in a Wikipedia article and therefore I am unsure how to proceed, as some references can be used but they state misleading information.

Thank you.

Moores10 (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moores10 There is no formal limit on the number of times a draft can be submitted. However, if you keep submitting it without addressing or at least making progress towards addressing the issues, it will eventually be rejected(meaning that it cannot be resubmitted). 331dot (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moores10 You'll need more than what's there. I think if you can find 4-5 more good sources, there's a chance. I'd also get rid of any titles in the discography that can't be sourced or don't have an article of their own. It bloats it and hurts your chances of success, since it's a stream of non-notable items. You can always ping me again to review, but I'm not as frequently on the site as I'd like to be. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:47, 2 December 2021 review of submission by ZX2006XZ


ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Just letting you know that there is a new poster.

[1]

@ZX2006XZ: Please do yourself a favour, stop trying to get this rammed through, and wait until the discussion at WT:FILM has finished or the film has released. Power-posting here when someone in the studio opts for prosciutto over salami in their lunch is a waste of everyone's time and doesn't help your case a whit; if anything it makes all your protestations of having no connexion to the subject ring hollow. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:32, 2 December 2021 review of draft by AmirahBreen


Amirah talk 17:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: This hasn't been submitted for review, but it would be summarily declined if it were. This needs to be written as prose, not as a bunch of lists/cirriculum vitae. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General references are allowed in articles, particularly if they are stubs. See Wikipedia:CITETYPE Amirah talk 17:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AmirahBreen: I think you're close with the BBC coverage, but I prefer the earlier version TheRoadIsLong tried to help you with, without the small subsections. Better an flowing longer stub than a staccato disjointed one. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you are saying, but in one breath they are telling me to expand the sections and in the next to remove the section headers. There is no point in working backwards on it. For that reason I would rather go the route of expanding it. But when I try to do so they are accusing me of reverting their edits in which they removed the section headers. I have also considered abandoning the draft and publishing a stub with no section headers, which may get it published quicker, but the work on expanding it would still have to be done either way. Amirah talk 21:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


December 3

00:59:40, 3 December 2021 review of submission by Sjchin

Asking for this page - Draft:Akribis_Systems#cite_note-2 Wanted to ask if this link can be used as a source? https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/becoming-global-hub/connecting-world-2277481 This is a part of the docuseries done by Channel News Asia. Our part starts at 28:00. Sjchin (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:09:13, 3 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by StrategyLady



StrategyLady (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:14, 3 December 2021 review of submission by Rajeshrajesh2345


Rajeshrajesh2345 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeshrajesh2345 You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone; please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:27:20, 3 December 2021 review of submission by Bobbiecompulsory


I am trying to make a page regarding a short film, I have included over 50 citations from reputable sources including film festival websites, reviewers and news websites. I have added links and credited all statements within the article. In order to highlight that what I was stating about the film's synopsis was indeed correct I cited the film's website which would additionally support that information. This page was by no means to promote but to highlight the cast, crew and festival accolades of the film, which were all supported by related links and sources.

However this is what I received with my rejection:

Besides notability concerns, you can not just lift content from the webpage of the movie and transfer it to wikipedia. we are not here to promote a product and truly care very little what a subject has to say about themselves


Bobbiecompulsory (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbiecompulsory The draft was deleted as a copyright infringement; if you lifted content like the syopsis from the film website, that would indeed be a copyright violation. "Highlight the cast, crew and festival accolades of the film" is indeed a promotional purpose. Wikipedia is only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a film, not based on any materials put out by those associated with the film(such as interviews with staff/cast, press releases, basic announcements), showing how the film meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. If you are associated with this film, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the synopsis, the biographies of the cast were word for word copyright violations. This plus the overly promotional tone of the article left no discretion when reviewing. Slywriter (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:26, 3 December 2021 review of draft by 2601:646:4300:3050:CD09:2F86:5158:F8CF


Please delete the following draft wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stan_Polinkovsky

I created this on accident.

Thank you! 2601:646:4300:3050:CD09:2F86:5158:F8CF (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:56, 3 December 2021 review of submission by 27.59.83.184


27.59.83.184 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide actual independent sources. Interviews, blogs and re-printed press releases do not establish notabilty. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:43:52, 4 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Spacemud1


I apologize for the inconvenience but my article about the youtuber "bodiggles" was declined, and I need some clarification of what i need to change/do so it is acceptable. Thank you for your time.

Spacemud1 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. We cannot accept "I know <foo> personally" as a source - What should happen if you should become an amnesiac, become incommunicado, or die, and how can we be sure you aren't lying for his benefit? Published third-party sources are a hard requirement on Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacemud1: (re-signing for ping) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:48, 4 December 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Parthyadav51



Parthyadav51 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1058550805"