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 Adeelkhanwwc (talk | contribs) at 03:53, 26 January 2022. 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


January 20

02:45:56, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 122.177.98.206


I little bit confused because the source and references which I had attached are reliable, independent and reputed media houses. But my draft was declined by giving these reasons. Please advise 122.177.98.206 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No draft specified. – robertsky (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:12:33, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 157.46.115.246


157.46.115.246 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:48, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Sanjith kanth


Sanjith kanth (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:56:35, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Jontickner

Hello. I'm having trouble with this draft, as the sources previously didn't make the credibility/reliability grade. I've made some minor changes to a couple of sources, and believe the article to be "based on reliable, published sources" now. I've also ensured all the information in it is properly covered by those sources.

The article will involve closer scrutiny, of course, because it's a biog for a living person. All the sources used are independent, in no way self-published, do not involve trial/court transcripts and so on. Many of them are sources to back up something that physically exists - books, in the main. I've also made clear what information/facts they are referring to.

Although the subject makes an appearance in plenty of other wikipedia pages, I have not used these as sources or references.

But I may have miss-judged, and I wonder whether there is a particular source (or sources) I still have in the most recent edit which is not considered high enough quality.

Can you point me to the specifics? Once I know which one(s) I'll address either by sourcing new information or deleting that content.

Huge thanks for your help on this - it's really appreciated. Jon Jontickner (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Jontickner (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:05, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Dwightkomproe

You need to disclose your paid editing status before editing further. Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:37, 20 January 2022 review of submission by ShinexStar

I need a re-review as I have done the needful. Please check it now ShinexStar (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:07, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Ajayjagtap1632000

I have quite a good number of citations in this article, so all the information I am writing is true and trustworthy. If it's about notability, Dr Shridhar Pandya is a notable person with several review articles and research papers online by his name.

If it's not enough, let me know if there is anything I could do to get my article published on Wikipedia.

Ajayjagtap1632000 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:07, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 831n


Since the initial submission, the variety and number of sources has increased. Is this ready for submission now?

831n (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:08, 20 January 2022 review of draft by Cvu27


Hi, I recently got a wikipedia submission rejected due to the following

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I am wondering if I can keep passing mentions in the submission as well as include significant coverage in my submission? Thanks.

Cvu27 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cvu27, most likely you can. AfC reviewers are mostly focused on WP:Notability and WP:GNG which require independent secondary sources. Once notability has been met the bar moves to WP:DUE for inclusion of material.Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
E/C Sure you can keep passing mentions, but they do not contribute to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:44:24, 20 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by CyrilPul


I am a member of a choral society and have tried to produce a Wikipedia page showing the history.

I have checked the design with and got approval from the Chairman and the person responsible for the web page.

My history on the Wikipedia entry, that I am trying to submit, does contain some phrases from the URL of the society.

I have looked on the website https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates and found a template containing:-

To: permissions-commons at wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I choose one: [am name] or [represent copyright holder's name], the choose one: [creator] or [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work][1] or [the work depicted in the media][2] or [both the work depicted and the media][3] as shown here: [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons],[4] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name] [Sender's authority (if applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)] [Date]

If I get this signed and sent off, will I then be able to use some of the wording from the Society's webpage?

Thanks

CyrilPul (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CyrilPul, are there multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the subject? Even with permission, the subject's own words are of limited use (WP:ABOUTSELF) and do not contribute to WP:Notability / WP:GNG. I'd focus on getting the article accepted first before worrying about content from the subject. Also see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest and must declare it.Slywriter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


CyrilPul, are there multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the subject? Even with permission, the subject's own words are of limited use (WP:ABOUTSELF) and do not contribute to WP:Notability / WP:GNG. I'd focus on getting the article accepted first before worrying about content from the subject. Also see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest and must declare it.Slywriter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CyrilPul (ec) You are putting the cart before the horse in that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have said about a topic, not what it says about itself. Put another way, we don't want to know what the society considers to be its own history, but what independent reliable sources report to be its history. The society's website is where it may tell about its own history. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:24, 20 January 2022 review of draft by Smith216


Come Out Fighting (2022 film) is an American war film.

This film is centered on history meeting with changes will include as of the historical "being" mention that a "war film" includes Wikipedia affirmation.


Smith216 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Smith216[reply]

Smith216 Wikipedia is not here to affirm films or any topic. To merit an article, this film must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film. Unreleased films are generally not notable unless some aspect of the production of the film is notable(such as the recent on set shooting at Rust (suspended film)). Your draft has no sources at all, even if the film was released. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:17, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Avi Sindhu


Avi Sindhu (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avi Sindhu: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Pretty much all your sources are the subject themselves and do not help for notability as a consequence. It's also written as if to try an attract an audience; we do not tolerate advertizing masquerading as an encyclopaedia article and neither does Wikipedia's readers. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:03, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Ebates01

This is written from an neutral point of view. Ebates01 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Heck, no! It was hopeless promotional, a shameless advertisement with a side order of brown-nosing of the family who donated the money. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

11:17:24, 21 January 2022 review of submission by 103.85.11.216


103.85.11.216 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:48, 21 January 2022 review of submission by Sainathsengundhar

Oliver La Rosa is well known celebrity in crypto giant so he should be in Wikipedia all this details are accurate kindly approve it.

Sainathsengundhar (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sainathsengundhar The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:48, 21 January 2022 review of submission by 103.4.125.25


103.4.125.25 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a how to guide or guidebook. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:57, 21 January 2022 review of draft by AdjectiveGuy


Hi. I've used Wikipedia for a while and I totally forgot something. How many citations needed for an article?

AdjectiveGuy (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AdjectiveGuy There is not a specific number, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AdjectiveGuy Would you consider merging the content and redirecting to Kalaleng? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:05, 21 January 2022 review of draft by George-Amherst


The title of my submission has been changed without my permission. The new title is totally unacceptable. Please advise on how I should proceed. I would demand to withdraw the submission altogether rather than proceed with the title which has been substituted for the original title. George-Amherst (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George-Amherst, the page can be moved to a different title, if sources support but what it can not have is three different titles and an opening line that says "Subject is...". All three can be used in the opening sentence if sources support.
What is the proper title for the article?
Also, you can abandon the draft and it will be deleted in six months or you can place {{Db-author}} at the top of the page and an admin will clear it out.Slywriter (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page name has been changed without my permission, and it is a totally incorrect title of the subject of the article I have submitted. The correct title of the article is: Le Musée français, Le Musée Napoléon and Le Musée royal. It should not be considered under the title Le Musee royal, and I need to withdraw it if this change cannot be corrected. George-Amherst (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George-Amherst: if and when the draft is accepted, it can be moved to a title that better reflects the content. --bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George-Amherst (ec) Please leave a post on the draft talk page regarding the title; if the draft is accepted, the reviewer can place it at the proper title. Please note that Wikipedia typically uses the name of a topic that is most commonly used by independent reliable sources, and not necessarily official or legal names. See WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to why the title would be a deal breaker for an otherwise valid article (if it is). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George-Amherst If this were a company article, it would not list all the previous names of the company in the title. It would just list the current or latest name, and mention the earlier names in the history, bolded if there are redirects. Otherwise you'd have an article called Verizon, GTE, Bell Atlantic. The last title the publication held should be the article title. Once an article is loaded, it isn't owned by anyone, so sometimes that can be hard for the writer. Perhaps a blog might be more to your liking, since then you can keep others from changing it. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some minor edits to bring it into further alignment and hopefully clear up the title issue a bit more. I believe, this article is not about a single publication, but about three publications as a series. This series does not have a singular title, as one may expect with most other series. They are referred to by all three when written about in the sources or individually if you are only speaking of a single publication. I do believe an article on each could be possible but would duplicate much of the content. So I can see some of the frustration of George-Amherst, but this is a strong over reaction to something this minor which can very quickly be cleared up with some discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George-Amherst Also, if accepted, redirects can be created from the other names that it has had.Naraht (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:45, 21 January 2022 review of submission by Eatthecrow

Hello! I was wondering if someone could help me out. I'm still learning how to write a good Wikipedia article. In the Draft:Jo Bamford, one of the reasons they declined it was it needs to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Can anyone offer some pointers on how I could do that to improve the draft article? Thanks! Eatthecrow (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EatthecrowI'd reach out to the editor Synoman Barris that declined the article. It looks like it was improved some, but isn't a slam dunk.Naraht (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to on my talk page. Cheers Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 14:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:43:43, 21 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Itsfrizzy


My article has been rejected for using content that I own the copyright of, isn't that acceptable?

Itsfrizzy (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been declined because the references do not show that you qualify for a Wikipedia article, the references are your own website and Wikipedia has zero interest in what that says about you, we require independent sources that discuss you in depth. Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

11:37:33, 22 January 2022 review of draft by Irishkiwi007


I am not sure what more I can do to reference this article. The documentary was published on You Tube and is still there. The Director commented on facebook the number of views in the first 48 hours (reference to FB post added). The movie details (producer, director, cast, etc) have all been taken from the movie credits.

This is a small time product on a small budget with no advertising. Maybe watch Battleground Melbourne before you reject again?

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irishkiwi007 The content of the documentary is immaterial. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. It will only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. If no independent sources write about this documentary, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Facebook and YouTube are not independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also gather that you may have an association with this film, if so, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:20, 22 January 2022 review of submission by A Cutting Edge Glass

Hello, I would really like to know the reason why my post was rejected. The text is written organically and all the information is 100% accurate, I also I think the information about this product is very useful and I don't think there is any misuse. Can you please give me advice so that I can improve my post and so that it is eventually accepted by you.

Best Regards! A Cutting Edge Glass & Mirror A Cutting Edge Glass (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Cutting Edge Glass Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a topic, or to advertise a topic. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a topic, showing how that topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your draft offers no sources, which are required for verification purposes. It is also worded as more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:36, 22 January 2022 review of draft by Rkieferbaum


Hi, everyone! I'm experienced in ptwiki (portuguese) but haven't done many edits in enwiki, so I'm here to request a little assistance. The article above was moved to draft with the request to add more reliable, independent sources. It currently has 26 references, most of which are from well established media vehicles (including the BBC), though, granted, most of these aren't in English. I'm guessing this is the reason for the move and am currently working on adding more sources in English.

If there's anything else of note, then constructive input would be more than welcome.

Thanks and cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: I have not reviewed the sources but English sources are not required so that is not the issue. I suggest reading WP:THREE and posting a note on the draft's talk page with the three best sources you believe establish notability. I also suggest trimming out some the sources. There is generally no need to have multiple sources to support a fact so use the best one. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:28:45, 22 January 2022 review of submission by A40585

I'd like some more in-depth feedback on my article's rejection. The reason it was rejected was reading like an essay. I would like a bit more feedback on why this was, since I read the links the reviewer linked when I was writing the article, and I thought I was writing in a relatively encyclopedic fashion. Everything is sourced in primary/secondary sources (I admittedly need to fix up citing Wikipedia for a few sentences, I will do that tomorrow when I have the time). I made sure to not include my opinions, and basically summarize what my sources said about the topic. I would find it very useful to find more specific pointers about what language/parts of my article are specifically essay-like, since I thought I was doing what the links my reviewer linked were doing. Thanks a lot! A40585 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A40585: As written it reads more like an educational essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Keep it simple. Stick strictly to what the sources themselves say, do not extrapolate, and do not editorialise. You're not writing for the benefit of a bunch of students, you're writing for Joe Blow Splhamoney who's not looking for textbook examples; they just want an overview of what it is and a back-of-the-napkin explanation of what it does. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

00:28:15, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Sunil2404


Sunil2404 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote an article about a crypto project and also provided the link of an article published on Postmannews but still it got rejected. Please help me to publish the article.

Sunil2404, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. It requires independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the subject and must be written in a neutral tone. Additionally, it has been tagged for deletion as in its current state, there is no chance of it being an article.Slywriter (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunil2404: Care to take a mulligan on the topic area? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:05, 23 January 2022 review of draft by Deshabandara


My Article "Ruwan Fernando" has been rejected due to lack of references. Shall I put the youtube links of my released video songs? Deshabandara (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deshabandara: No, because we shouldn't be citing music videos for anything (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject). We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:55:41, 23 January 2022 review of submission by 192.88.124.49


I have resubmitted much more information to Wikipedia in the correct format and would like it to be re-reviewed and aproved. 192.88.124.49 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further barring considerably more and considerably better sources; we do not cite LinkedIn for anything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:59:56, 23 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachitj


I can understand there are long pending request but cannot expect rejection within 3 minutes of publishing my content. Reference are from wikipedia pages itself. Will request to review it again and I promise, I will keep updating the page.

Sachitj (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sachitj: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. The article as written is also promotional ("is a respectable and acclaimed name in the world of short films"? Really?). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:20, 23 January 2022 review of submission by ArticleCompiler


Hello, I would like advice on how to improve my submission for it to be accepted. I have read the guidelines and advice but I am at loss as to how to implement the general notability guideline. Thank you in advance.

ArticleCompiler (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArticleCompiler: Absent more and better sources that discuss Tantei at length, this draft isn't going anywhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:57, 23 January 2022 review of submission by profjrhodes

The page got declined because of lack of reliable sources--don't know how to address this, since I provided official/public websites verifying claims...? Also, maybe my reference style is incorrect. Help! (Note: I have announced my potential conflict of interest here. I don't editorialize, just list verifiable facts. Profjrhodes (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:51, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Ugloud


Ugloud (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugloud, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional content. Articles must be sourced to reliable, independent sources.Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:27:04, 23 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by BG Gurung



BG Gurung (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

02:19:25, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Deshabandara

Dear Sir,

Please let me know how should I claim my identity.

Thank You

Deshabandara (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deshavandara, Wikipedia pages are created for subjects that show notability in secondary reliable sources. A small fraction of humans who lived/live/will live on this planet will actually meet the standards for having an article. Focus on being successful and someone, someday may write a wikipedia article about you.Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deshabandara: Wikipedia is not social media. Subjects do not "claim their identity" here (and in fact shouldn't be editing about themselves), and cannot dictate content in an article about them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:32:44, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by JosePiedra


I'm requesting assistance because DGG rejected my article. The message I received states, "The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: basically political advertising."

DGG doesn't cite any examples or evidence to demonstrate how my article "is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," nor does he provide any evidence to support his completely subjective categorization of the article as "political advertising." In other words, DGG's subjective assessment without providing evidence to support his claims demonstrates his failure to abide by the Wikipedia neutrality principle.

Having reviewed my submission, I fail to see anything about it that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e., the Five Pillars. I would hope that a more objective reviewer/editor can see that the rejected article is written from a neutral perspective and absolutely not "political advertising" as DGG capriciously claims. (The article even documents, with citations, that County Commissioner Keith Baker is term-limited and has stated that he has no plans to run for any other elected office.) Additionally, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles/entries on Wikipedia about various politicians at all levels of government, and frankly, the article I submitted is better quality than several entries that I've read about politicians.

Everything in my article includes citations for sources of the information included, and the article is written from a neutral point of view, which further undermines DGG's claim of "political advertising." For example, this entry about a Colorado politician, includes the following biographical information without citations: "Kerr attended Foothills Elementary School, Dunstan Middle School, and Green Mountain High School, all within HD 26. Kerr received a B.A. in Geography, an M.A. in Information and Learning Technologies, and an Administrative Leadership and Policy Studies license from the University of Colorado." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kerr_(American_politician)

If anything, DGG's comments demonstrate disrespect for my legitimate work as a professional with a graduate degree and more than 30 years of professional experience as a writer and editor of publications in technical, scientific, business, history and many other disciplines.

For what it's worth, I started contributing to Wikipedia to improve entries related to Central Colorado, where I've worked as a professional editor and journalist for over 15 years. After making significant improvements to entries of local importance, I began working to create new entries to improve the information available about the people and places important to this region. After a decorated military careeer, Keith Baker has been a pillar of the local communities. Unfortunately, I was not able to find citable sources for most of his military achievements, but his other accomplishments, from helping to establish Browns Canyon National Monument, opposing Nestle Waters Norht America's groundwater extraction, are fully documented in my article. I have no interest in "political advertising," and I resent the subjective, unprofessional manner in which DGG rejected my article based on that false assertion. If anything in my draft does not meet Wikipedia standards, I'd appreciate a response from someone with enough professionalism to point out exactly what misses the mark and what can be done to address the deficiency.

I look forward to a reasonable response.

JosePiedra (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JosePiedra A county level politician does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, which means that Commissioner Baker must meet the broader definition of a notable person. I believe you that there are other similar or worse articles out there; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. I don't see where DGG was "unprofessional" in just giving their views. That you disagree with their assessment (which is fine) does not mean that they were unprofessional in giving it.
The draft does a good job of summarizing what he has been involved with, but seem to have little coverage of him personally. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic have chosen on their own to say about it. Please tell the three best sources you have for this person which provide significant coverage of them.
You say you are a professional writer; do you work for or represent Commissioner Baker? If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:39, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Luckyluce


Luckyluce (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luckyluce, you don't ask a question but your draft cites no sources. Need independent secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:33, 24 January 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6


Updated references. Kale My Name is very popular in black community. Unless you are black, you should not be deciding if this is notable enough. Please allow the page! 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works; the race of the reviewer does not play into whether an article or draft meets the notability criteria, and you cannot request that persons of a certain race(which we have no way to verify anyway, as we don't ask for proof of race here) review a draft. It is not us "deciding if it is notable enough"; you or those part of what seems to be a campaign to include this restaurant, must demonstrate that the restaurant receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets WP:ORG, the definition of a notable organization. As the draft was rejected, this seems unlikely, and as such it will not be considered further. Please use social media or the restaurant website to tell the world about this restaurant. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:46, 24 January 2022 review of draft by CarlSerafino


There is an article about this in 5 different languages. But the one I created in English was rejected. I would like to learn how to improve. I would also like to learn how to create a drop-down menu so that readers can view an article about a subject in different languages such as this one. CarlSerafino (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CarlSerafino The draft was declined, not rejected- the terms have different meanings here; rejection would mean resubmission would not be possible. Please review the comments left by reviewers, as well as the deletion discussion linked to there. Note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I don't believe what you ask about a drop down menu is technically possible. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, and that is because each language edition of Wikipedia is technically on its own domain. It's unlikely someone who can read en.wp is going to be interested in, for example, hi.wp or ro.wp or ak.wp versions of that article, and if they are they can navigate to that wiki or use the relevant interwiki links on the left hand side. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:55, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ising4jesus

Regarding the AOZ Studio draft page...


What do I need to do to correct the problems that were flagged? I thought I'd addressed them. Do I just need additional authoritative sources?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this page "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ising4jesus First, if you work for them, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell of the existence of something and what it does. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Interviews, mere reporting of activities, and other materials put out by the subject are not appropriate sources. This is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:02, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ramkashamalla


Ramkashamalla (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a blog to post our thoughts or experiences, it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:42:54, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan


Hello, I have a problem with an article. I mistakenly submitted two drafts and was told that, as the first one had not yet been validated, this one would be examined. The problem is that the first draft has nothing to do with the last one (three-four lines versus forty). What can I do to make sure that the second and most recent draft is examined directly? Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan, edit the source of the draft you do not want reviewed and remove the afc submission template. Though one being reviewed will not prejudice the other.Slywriter (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Slywriter! I hope it will be better now. Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections, for follow up comments. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:01, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Raavimohantydelhi


Raavi Mohanty 14:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Raavimohantydelhi: I strongly suggest you find a different topic area to work in. We take a very dim view of attempts to push fringe science, pseudoscience, and alternative medicine, as the reviewers politely told you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:32:26, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Popcultr


I'm not sure I understand how Variety - one of the worlds leading entertainment magazines is not a reliable independent source :) Same for Comicsbeat and HLN ( one of the biggest newspapers in Belgium )

Popcultr (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popcultr, Variety is an interview which means the subject's own words and views are covered. Interviews for this reason are not considered independent secondary sources and do not contribute to notability. WP:THREE independent references that discuss the subject is the simple rule of thumbSlywriter (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:21, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Puserisrivate


I am an accomplished musician looking to publish my own page, but I have run into a few problems...first, it says I am not citing my sources correctly, and secondly, not sure where I post "

"

Puserisrivate (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puserisrivate, sorry to disappoint but wikipedia is not a promotional tool. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is something you should take time to read but in short, Wikipedia pages are based on what independent, reliable secondary sources have to say about a subject. Also, should wikipedia ever publish an article about you, you will have zero control over what is added or deleted from the article.Slywriter (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:14, 24 January 2022 review of draft by PaperDrake


I can't seem to add the "children's literature" tag to my draft page for A.M. Dassu, a bestselling children's author from the UK. The other tags added fine, but this one keeps encountering an error and I don't know why. Can you tell me how to get it to work / add the tag for me please?

PaperDrake (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

05:52:31, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Alslogistics

I feel unsatisfied with the admin's decision. Here is an example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VinFast And here is my useful info -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aviation_Logistics_Corporation I repeat this is useful information, not advertising. According to international : ALS is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis According to Vietnam: ALS is Aviation Logistics Corporation

I need your help in reopening that information for everyone to understand the correct definition of ALS in Vietnam Alslogistics (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use the absence, presence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own, and this is not the venue to challenge spam deletions. You are OBLIGATED to disclose your employment and change your username; failing to do either will lead to a block. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:09:29, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Poweruni

Is been know around and getting to be a huge company and i think they need a chance Poweruni (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poweruni, Wikipedia is not for promotion. Wikipedia deals in reliable sources. Without WP:THREE independent reliable secondary sources there is little chance of an article. Also if you work for, own, or are otherwise affiliated with the company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, such disclosures are not optional.Slywriter (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:55, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Desktarim


Very notable. Black Community would disagree with your rejection of this page. Please look at the references. Desktarim (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dragging race into this and you are going to deeply regret it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desktarim You are making it harder, not easier, for this establishment to get an article. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the sources; they are almost exclusively interviews and announcements, which do not establish notability, see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, we don't know the race of the people sitting at the computer, and neither do you. You are free to start your own encyclopedia with whatever criteria you wish to have. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) As to your sources, I refer you to the top table here:
You have no source that is unambiguously good for notability, and practically all of your sources use Kale My Name as a prop in service to Tabitha Brown. And in case you're wondering, I've blasted editors for sourcing of precisely this calibre on topics that are considerably more monochrome. This is not a matter of race, this is a matter of "Your sources are no good." —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:17:48, 25 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Tber617777



Tber617777 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:37, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Desktarim


Added more references as advised. <3 <3 <3 Desktarim (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected it will not be considered further, and spamming other articles with links to "Kale My Name" is likely to lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Desktarim That is not what you were advised at all. There is nothing that you can do, you will need to move on from this. And do not create new sections with every post; please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:37, 25 January 2022 review of draft by Factcheckerkhi


Hello, this is user Factcheckerkhi. I have drafted and sent for review an article on Soch Fact Check, a fact-checking news organization that is associated with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a part of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. My first draft was turned down due to the following reasons: subject (Soch Fact Check) does not qualify for a Wikipedia article and does not show significant coverage about the subject (Soch Fact Check) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I checked my references and, consequently, added a dozen more references for the article to be considered trustworthy and worthy of being published. The reason I'm asking / posting here is that fact-checking is one of the most crucial jobs in present day considering how fast and vastly fake news spreads. Soch Fact Check is the top and only reliable fact-checking news organization in Pakistan and is also certified by the IFCN. Pakistan is a country rife with fake news, false claims, misleading reports, among other similar things. The primary reason for creating this article on Soch Fact Check is that Soch Fact Check has to apply for verification on Twitter in order to further cement the company's authenticity in fact-checking and to also provide a reliable, verified, and trustworthy platform on Twitter for people to turn to when misleading claims can lead to violence, conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxer propaganda, etc. It is absolutely imperative for Soch Fact Check to be verified on Twitter and, therefore, this Wikipedia article, which has been declined and not picked up again, needs to be approved and published ASAP. I understand that there are many submissions and many editors on Wikipedia and that there may be delays but this delay can end up having untoward consequences for the citizens of Pakistan.

Factcheckerkhi (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Factcheckerkhi Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements Twitter or other social media imposes on your organization for their processes. Nor does Wikipedia have any interest in enhancing search results for your organization. We are only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. It is not enough for your organization to merely exist and for any article about it to merely tell it exists and what it does. You will have to find some other way to get verified. It is curious that Twitter would allow Wikipedia as a form of verification as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Factcheckerkhi: That Wikipedia article option isn't intended for companies made in the last 20 years; it's intended for entities whose career/history largely predates the Internet entirely. Hence why the Twitter page explicitly points out the article must meet our notability guidelines in some fashion. A quick-and-dirty job isn't going to cut it, and we frankly wish Twitter would stop having that as an option because the end result is relentless spam from people who only see an article and not the man-hours of work that goes into writing a well-sourced article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Re-signing to fix ping) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:31, 25 January 2022 review of submission by 71.174.103.90


71.174.103.90 (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does enclinged mean?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Any facts in Draft:Enclinged that can be substantiated by reliable sources could be added to a dictionary. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:14, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Clone Trooper07

Hello, I just wanted a re-review because I believe that this game is, in my opinion, is important. I am an avid speedrunner of this game and I am currently trying to get this game added to the official speedrun.com selection of games. If I could get this article on Wikipedia it would make getting it on the speedrun.com games selection so much easier. Thanks have a nice day. ^-^ Clone Trooper07 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Trooper07, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not exist to help promote subjects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers WP:NOTABLE subjects which have coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Your article cites no sources, shows nothing notable and your submission is in bad-faith as you are trying to use wikipedia for a purpose contrary to its mission.Slywriter (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

03:53:21, 26 January 2022 review of submission by Adeelkhanwwc


Adeelkhanwwc (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help why this is getting rejected?

Not to be confused with Huma Batool or Huma Batool.

Ms.
Huma Batool
Born (1982-10-30) 30 October 1982 (age 42)
Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan
NationalityPakistani
Occupations
Years active2020–present
Known forChairperson of the Alvir Airways
Spouse
Tehseen Alvi
​
(m. 2008)​

Ms. Huma Batool (born 30 October 1982), personality with seventeen years of diversified and accumulative experience and extensive research on business models and systems of economy, is the owner and Chairperson, Alvir Airways Private Limited, Pakistan.[1] Additionally, she is the Managing Director of Vantage Laboratories Private Limited, Pakistan and is heading numerous other organizations in leadership capacity.[2]

Early Life

Batool was born in Faisalabad, Pakistan, to an educationist Syeda Shakira and landlord and businessman Syed Ahzar Hassan. She is the youngest in her family with five siblings. Her grandfather Syed Muzaffar Ali Shah served in Indian Civil Service and was a renowned Sufi of his times. One of her grandfather’s brother Syed Mazhar Ali Shah served as fighter pilot in British Royal Airforce before the partition of subcontinent and the other one as Commissioner of Dhaka. Her grandparents migrated from Ludhiana and Jalandhar and her forefathers were settled in Shahpur, India. She inherited land holdings and business capital from her paternal sources. Her father was a highly skilled businessman and at the same time an excellent orator and was known for his eloquence.

Education

Batool was educated at Divisional Public School, Faisalabad for initial years. Later she graduated from Kinnaird College, Lahore and then did Master in English from Government College, Lahore. She is an alumni of Fatima Jinnah Women University, Rawalpindi having obtained her MPhil degree in English Literature after a gap of 16 years in her academic journey.

Batool spent a blooming childhood and teenage and was an achiever in her academic and professional institutions. She achieved multiple certificates of achievements in the fields of debating, dramatics and editorial boards of the college magazines. Recently, Consulate General Barcelona, Spain presented her with a Certificate of Acknowledgment on behalf of Government of Pakistan.

Recognition

Ms. Batool has earned the unprecedented honour for Pakistan of being the first ever woman owner of an airline not only in Pakistan but in 100 years of world aviation history. She also is the youngest entrepreneur in this industry.

Business Career

After several years of successful import business Batool decided to build her own medicine manufacturing facility under the name of Vantage Laboratories Private Limited in a remote area with the intent of generating employment and development in the area. Batool, within days achieved a prestige in the market with the best quality medicines.

Philanthropy

Ms. Batool is a strong and dedicated activist for women empowerment in Pakistan and across globe as well and represented the country on various forums for the same cause. To further this cause, she holds contributions for the welfare works in the society from running an orphanage to microfinancing women for running small scale businesses.

A diligent and pragmatic personality, passionate for her professional profile, Ms. Batool undoubtedly, is an inspiration for not only Pakistani women but for every woman across globe who wants to contribute to the society.

She is awarded with numerous recognitions and honorary awards in regard of her services for various causes.

Poetess

She is a writer, a poetess, and has an immense fondness for Persian and Punjabi Sufi poets. Statement feature of her personality is her love for her country and countrymen. She has dedicated her life for contributing to the welfare of Pakistan.

References

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

  1. ^ "PCAA awards licence to Alvir Airways". The Nation. 13 July 2021.
  2. ^ "Alvir Airways Airline Profile | CAPA". centreforaviation.com.
  3. ^ "ہما بتول: 'ٹکٹ کے حصول میں دشواری پر اپنی ایئرلائن بنانے کا فیصلہ کیا'" – via www.bbc.com.
  4. ^ "Alvir Airways Archives". ARY NEWS.
  5. ^ "Huma Batool - Profile, Political Career & Election History". UrduPoint.
  6. ^ "Alvir Airways - About Us". alvirairways.com.
  7. ^ https://dra.gov.pk/Home/Download?ImageName=Minutes%20267%20v3.docx
  8. ^ "Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Grants Start Up Airline Alvir Airways Tourism Promotion and Regional Integration Operating License". 5 August 2021.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1067979675"