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 Sachitj (talk | contribs) at 14:55, 1 March 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


February 23

10:12:36, 23 February 2022 review of draft by 2404:C804:1905:7E00:8CFE:CAFA:8766:21AB


Looking at the draft Tailscale article and the big pink box guidance about subject needing coverage seems met so I am not sure what this isn't set as a real article rather than a draft.

" significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

There is several references in the draft and I note:

significant coverage - the references have Tailscale as the whole subject; so it is not a passing mentiion at all

published - web articles but established/openly accessible webpages - so I think this is ok?

reliable / secondary - the websites have been around for a while (eg include TechCrunch.com) and obviously secondary - they have business outside of Tailscale and only reporting on Tailscale as part of their wider remit.

The article should be meeting the criteria? 2404:C804:1905:7E00:8CFE:CAFA:8766:21AB (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe re-read the criteria. Crunchbase- useless profile, Hanselman- Blog useless, github- useless, ethulhu- blog of a developer so useless. That leaves TechCrunch which is written by a writer who covers startups. Quite simply, needs more independent secondary sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:25, 23 February 2022 review of submission by Mehediabedin

}}

I got a message in my account stating that my draft was rejected because it already exist. But I looked and I am sure that it is not exist in English Wikipedia. It states that Sutrapur Thana and Hrishikesh Das Road is same topic. But they are not. The first is a police station. Second topic is independent from Sutrapur Thana. There are many streets like Hrishikesh Das Road in Sutrapur area. So why telling me to write the topic on the page of Sutrapur Thana? It is not a street even! My draft has enough references. Most sources don't mention about Sutrapur, some are. The sources are independent and reliable too. You can check them. I just can't understand the reason behind the rejection.

Mehedi Abedin 10:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mehediabedin. The way to read the submission declined notice is not that the thana and the road are identical, but that it would be better to start by describing the road within the article about the thana. If the road is so significant that a stand alone encyclopedia article should be written about it (as you believe) then it is strange that there is no mention of the road in the article about the community where it is located, or in anywhere else on Wikipedia. Fifth Avenue, for example, comes up repeatedly in the article about New York City. Does that help you understand what the reviewer meant? There is much more to say about Fifth Avenue, over 10,000 words, than can reasonably fit in the article about the city. If, after describing Hrishikesh Das Road in Sutrapur Thana, you find that the same is true of the road, then you can discuss at Talk:Sutrapur Thana spinning out a separate article about the road. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worldbruce Thanks for reply. Yes the road is significant. But in Sutrapur Thana the road is not mentioned because the article (Sutrapur Thana) is incomplete. For example, you said that it is strange is Hrishikesh Road is not mentioned in the article. But did you notice that no street of Sutrapur is not mentioned in the article. Why? Because the article is incomplete. Also it is a historic road. That's why I think it should have a seperate article. Putting the texts of the road in Sutrapur thana then starting a discussion about the seperate article, is there any alternative way? Because you see that the Sutrapur Thana article will be nothing but about "only a road" if I put my writings in the article. That would be unreasonable. (Note : Also I think that we should not compare the draft with Fifth Avenue. It is a major road of New York, like Airport Road is a major road of Dhaka. And you see my draft is about a road of a neighbourhood of Dhaka.) Mehedi Abedin 18:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mehediabedin, It is OK to expand an article by adding a lot about a particular aspect. If it begins to overwhelm the nominal topic it can be split later into a stand-alone article. This happens all the time and is a natural development process for complicated topics. It is also far easier to establish notability for inclusion in a notable topic than to establish notability on its own. Worldbruce has given you good advice. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:04, 23 February 2022 review of draft by ReneRam63


I'm trying to create a page for an item in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Economy_and_Finance_(Italy)#Unlisted_companies for Consap S.p.A. that is missing in the English version of Wikipedia but is present in the Italian Wikipedia at the following address https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consap

If the article is refused, could it be possible to know what exactly is wrong. All the information is correct and also from third party sourcesReneRam63 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC) ReneRam63[reply]

ReneRam63 (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ReneRam63, Your sources are all WP:PRIMARY and mostly citations of law. Please review WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY for a better understanding english wikipedia sourcing requirements. this guide may help as wellSlywriter (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:05, 23 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Klevack



Klevack (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:05, 23 February 2022 review of submission by Klevack


I have revised the submission for law firm Singleton Urquhart Reynolds Vogel LLP so it's completely accurate and backed up factually, and no advertising as you suggested. Please could this be published now. Thank you.

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Klevack#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:53, 23 February 2022 review of submission by Junuzsalihi99


I edited the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gazeta_e_pavarur. Please review and let me know if there is anything I need to revise. Thanks!

Junuzsalihi99 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:34:43, 23 February 2022 review of draft by Alwayslp


Alwayslp (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm writing because I had requested deletion of this draft as its author: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paulie_Gee

I wrote a new draft, labeling it with the same name but with a 2 at the end, and I submitted it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Paulie_Gee_2

But it wasn't approved because the initial draft is still under review. Therefore, I requested deletion of the initial draft with the Db-g7 tag, but I'm not sure if I did so correctly? I don't know how long it takes to delete a draft? Thank you for your help.

Alwayslp (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayslp: Why would you request to delete an old draft then make a new version? Why not just fix the first one? I will request a history merge. I do caution you on requesting deletion of a draft and then start right into creating a draft on the exact same topic this is frowned upon and makes it look like you are trying to game the system for some reason. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the last decline I see now why you did this. The history merge will keep the most recent version and allow for it to be resubmitted. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. I saw the notice that you've placed on top of the original version of the draft, requesting that its history be merged into the 2nd (and new) draft. Is there anything else that I need to do besides resubmit the 2nd (new) draft version? Do I need to wait for anything before doing so, or may I resubmit it now? Alwayslp (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayslp: I would wait until the merge is complete and then resubmit at that point. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Will do. Appreciate your help.

Alwayslp (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:19, 23 February 2022 review of draft by Jerrythemannet

I am trying to make a page for my favorite band however my sources keep getting denied. I would love to know what I am doing wrong in my source selection or if there is anything else I need to fix.

Jerrythemannet (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerrythemannet. See Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. The draft largely cites interviews, which are not sufficiently independent to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia). The first criterion for notability of musicians and ensembles specifically excludes "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". The draft also relies heavily on self-published sources, specifically podcasts hosted on YouTube or Spotify. Podcasts, like blogs, can be reliable if they're from otherwise reliable publishers (such as The Pitch newspaper's Streetwise podcast), but the majority of podcasts have no reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music. You could try finding non-interview significant coverage of the band in those reliable sources. There's almost zero chance, however, that a band that released their first album last year will be notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

06:28:10, 24 February 2022 review of submission by Alphaed


Good day. You stopped the publication of article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ANCOR with a reason "Resubmitted without even attempting inprovement". Please note that the previous time this article did not pass moderation, as there was a duplicate of another draft. The duplicate was deleted, this article was resubmitted for moderation again (ofcause without improvements), but you rejected it because there are no changes. What's the best way me to do it?

Alphaed (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alphaed,Other concerns were raised beyond the duplication. Please re-read previous reviewers comments about press releases and reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slywriter,I've removed links to press releases as they are no good attestation.

Information about The Staffing 100 too (although it is true.) What else can I do to make a page about a real company appear?.Alphaed (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:31, 24 February 2022 review of submission by Damiron007


Please the proposed Wikipedia page "Serenity Health Training Institute" is a well established Health Institution situated in Southfield Michigan United State. For more details about the existence of the Institution. https://www.serenityhealthtraining.com. Kindly approve the page Serenity Health Training Institute. Thank you. Damiron007 (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damiron007 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. An article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Your draft does not do that.
If you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:02, 24 February 2022 review of draft by Nicolas M W


Hello, my article about Lisl Schorr (my Great-aunt), was rejected because it does not "show significant coverage (...) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The problem is precisely that, because of her banishment from the art scene by the Nazis between 1935 and 1945 and her deportation to different camps, there are very little information about her work. I gathered the little data available by corresponding by email with various museum curators and archivists from Austria and elsewhere, and most of the reference I used are in the published books included in the reference section. So I don't understand the reason for this rejection. Thanks for helping! Nicolas

Nicolas M W (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas M W An important principle of Wikipedia is verifiability. An article must summarize independent reliable sources that can be verified and demonstrate notability. If there are few or no sources about a topic, regardless of the reason, that topic may not be on Wikipedia. If you just want to tell the world about your relative, there may be alternative outlets with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear how they would pass the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas M W For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode(even on a phone). 331dot (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:49, 24 February 2022 review of draft by Kuldhar Rabha


The references are given in the appropriate place and requested to review. Thanks. Kuldhar Rabha (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldhar Rabha, next step is to tone down the promotional and flowery wording. Encyclopedia articles are dry facts.Slywriter (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slywriter  Done. -Kuldhar Rabha (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:14, 24 February 2022 review of submission by 7beru7

why was my request denied? sorry im new to wikipedia and was just trying to publish my original species of fursona. 7beru7 (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what Wikipedia is for. See if WikiFur will take it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:09, 24 February 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:4083:20C0:54C6:A3FE:1C6:B810


Sources for this subject found

2600:1700:4083:20C0:54C6:A3FE:1C6:B810 (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all still trash. One-paragraph articles, an interview, and two 404'd pages all add up to "Notability not proven". —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


February 25

01:57:07, 25 February 2022 review of submission by 58.88.62.124


I am not the initial writter or submitter, but I think this draft should be re-reviewed. I disagree with the initial reviewer Nyanardsan that this is a "POV-pushing essay", when there are citations and other sources that talks about this topic. 58.88.62.124 (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal to the reviewer, but you could also try expanding the existing article about Bumiputera (Malaysia). 331dot (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:34:53, 25 February 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

I have been trying to publish my draft "The Walking Zombie 2" but it is being rejected every time. Please check my draft and tell why is it happening i have put many riwvews and sources about it and I am not biased in the article. -Billapartygang123 Billapartygang123 (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that the game does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability. The sources are largely game walkthroughs, places to obtain the game, and other minor coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier it was declined due to lack of independent references but now i have put many independent rivewis/sources. Please check and approve it for article. Billapartygang123 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 You put sources, but you have not summarized what they say. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the game, not merely tell about the game. For additional comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. This is easier to do in full desktop mode. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I have to also tell what those independent reviews are telling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billapartygang123 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:16, 25 February 2022 review of draft by Emmy1707


Thank you very much for the quick reply and the tips. I have made the corrections and added the missing sources, but I am unsure if they are sufficient. Again, I would be very happy to receive a reply.Emmy1707 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy1707 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:23:34, 25 February 2022 review of submission by Jmcapdevj


Jmcapdevj (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I submitted a revised version of John R. Falck draft following suggestions by the last reviewer I reduced the number of citations and condensed the text as much as possible. I would like to know: a) was it received, b) are the changes acceptable, and c) what do i need to do to finalize it Thanks Jorge Capdevila (ID Jmcapedvj)Jmcapdevj (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. John R. Falck now an article. David notMD (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:12, 25 February 2022 review of draft by HiMyNameIsFrancesca

Hi, the reasons given for not accepting the article don't seem to actually apply to the article. I came on this article after it had been completely rewritten and edited it for grammar and organization. However, the reviewer on the 22nd just gave the same exact reason, copy & paste.

I don't see how it reads like an advertisement. The topic is clearly notable, it's a huge subsector of the financial services industry. It is not focused on any company or country, etc. The article is well-referenced, it is neutral on the topic, notability is not in question.

So I am completely befuddled by the rejection on the 22nd, especially since there is a huge backlog yet it happened so quickly, by copy & pasting the same identical reasons that probably did apply before someone rewrote it.

Can some people please actually look at it and state how the complaints about it actually apply?

HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HiMyNameIsFrancesca, funny you say copy and paste as the article is a copy and paste of Custodian_bank.Slywriter (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[[1] -earwig report comparing the two.Slywriter (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the other article BUT that does not negate the fact that none of the reasons for rejection actually apply to the article. If they do apply to Securities Services, they apply EVEN MORE SO to Custodian bank because I edited the Securities services article for grammar and removed some slangy words like "players" that gave it a hint of being advertisement-like. It seems to be written originally by someone in the UK but maybe English is their second language. If VALID reason had been given for rejecting the article the first time, I wouldn't have wasted time editing it. This kind of sloppiness in rejecting articles is NOT a good way to get people to participate in Wikipedia. HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

07:38:15, 26 February 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

Please check my draft now. I have done extensive changes in the draft. Please approve it for an article. Billapartygang123 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:36, 26 February 2022 review of submission by Sharma9819

I just want My Rabra Family Wikipedia page as there is page available for Kapoor family bachchan family etc that's it please approve it Sharma9819 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharma9819 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources in the draft. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If you just want to tell the world about your family, you might try social media or other alternative forum with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:37, 26 February 2022 review of submission by Navodya mobile


Navodya mobile (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your YouTube channel. Autobiographys, while not forbidden, are strongely discouraged. Judging by the birth date in the draft you should read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:50, 26 February 2022 review of submission by 175.157.242.30


175.157.242.30 (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:44, 26 February 2022 review of submission by Mahmoudfarag92


Mahmoudfarag92 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahmoudfarag92: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We have zero interest in what the company says about itself on or off Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:20:40, 26 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 72.142.115.6


I am requesting assistance and have in the article because I am not an expert in writing encyclopedia articles and I can only offer the basics. It is actually degrading that this is considered an essay when it is not currently an assembled product. It also appears to be theft of a trade secret despite that I already shared this idea with both Masdar.ae and Peterbilt. Essays are shorter and aim at presenting the writer's opinion with supporting arguments. Research papers are more complex and require a deep study on the matter and presentation of other scientists' opinions as well as the writer's conclusion..

I appeal the decision that this is an essay, closing the door on it that fast actually appear mischievous in that the intention is greed silencing of a trade secret. Obviously, considering the invention is incomplete, it's going to be short. I ask that you assist in helping form an idea that is capable of really helping humanity now and into the future. Considering humanity really needs it in a time where we have amassed millions of oil wells around the world and for the sake of climate change. I also appeal if there was any consideration that this is opinion based when I provided several sources of information all of which are relevant to the invention. I am unsure this reviewer is legitimate. I have made edits before to articles and noticed trolls which reported it with a return message from you that the troll was banned.

72.142.115.6 (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will not help with that goal. We're an encyclopaedia project, not someplace to try and push a novel concept. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:24:44, 26 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 72.142.115.6


I accept your decision however, it is the final time I share any ideas here that actually utilizes existing technologies. Nothing essay about that. I welcome you to improve it and claim it as your own article as I can already see, that is your intention. Just keep in mind, I already shared this with Masdar, Peterbilt and the Russian Federation, with my name attached. So your reviewer can be selfish all he wants, doesn't defeat the fact.

72.142.115.6 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:41:34, 26 February 2022 review of draft by 74.104.151.221


I looked at the requirements for academics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#:~:text=Every%20topic%20on%20Wikipedia%20must,library%20holdings%2C%20and%20so%20on.) and noted that a Guggenheim can be enough to demonstrate criterion 2: "(a) For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section)." Since Emily Greble has won a Guggenheim, and since the Guggenheim "can" be used to satisfy Criterion 2, that means determining if it does or does not is subjective. Given the statistically-demonstrated and notable bias against biographies of women on Wikipedia (see the following portions of the Wikipedia page on Gender Bias in Wikipedia: "Of the roughly 1.5 million biographical articles on the English Wikipedia in 2021, only 19% were about women.[50] The biographies that do exist are considerably more likely to be nominated for deletion than existing articles of men.[50]" and "According to a 2021 study by sociologist Francesca Tripodi, biographies on Wikipedia about women are disproportionately nominated for deletion as non-notable.[55][56]" -- I'd like to point out that this is a perfect example of a FEMALE ACADEMIC who DOES meet your criteria for "notability" (having won a Guggenheim) in a way that makes it 100% up to editors (predominantly male) to decide whether they want to accept it or not. This seems like a classic case of a missed opportunity to help users, like me, work against the gender bias in biographies on Wikipedia. Please reconsider.


74.104.151.221 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't investigated the notability of the person, but it appears that you currently have 3 sources, all of which are associated with the subject in some way. If you can find independent sources, that will be good. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:42:26, 26 February 2022 review of draft by Surfcaster33

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. --> 1. I was working in Sandbox on my article "Barbara Andres" and had added quite a few book citations. I submitted my draft and realized that all the citations had disappeared. Two internet citations remained with the submission. Do I have to reconstruct my references, or is there somewhere I might still find them?

2. How do I go about entering a table that I have constructed in Numbers in my article?

3. I plan to continue to improve and change my article while it gets reviewed, especially the book references I mentioned above. Will this delay my review? }

Surfcaster33 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Surfcaster33. (1) The disappeared citations are nowhere in the page history, so they must never have been published (saved) successfully. Unless you have a copy of them on your computer, you'll have to reconstruct them. (2) See the how-to guide Help:Table. (3) Submitting a draft for review before all the references are in place is highly risky. If the draft is reviewed before it's ready, it will be declined, and you'll have to "return to the end of the line" after you've fixed it. You may continue improving a draft while it is waiting for review, but it should be in an acceptable state before you submit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

08:01:22, 27 February 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

Anybody, please check my draft and approve it for an article I have done extensive changes in it. Billapartygang123 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 Please do not make repeated requests. Since your draft was rejected, you must appeal to the last reviewer. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:13:37, 27 February 2022 review of submission by Shadysbook


I am requesting this article to be published because the organization is one of the prominent fertility healthcare institutions in India. We have other players in India "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Hospitals", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashoda_Hospitals" who has the Wikipedia pages that represent healthcare development. Many of the Indians are not able to understand the importance of fertility, fertility rates, and fertility hospitals that can help them to undergo treatments.

Please check this link: https://datacommons.org/tools/timeline#&place=country/IND&statsVar=FertilityRate_Person_Female Which says the need for fertility hospitals that help many couples move on generations. This is an important issue and I am trying to educate everyone with the help of starting the article on one of the institutes now and proceeding to update further and this wing too. The share articles and hyperlinks are valid and authenticated in our newspapers, magazines and has great coverage across India. Please review this: https://oasisindia.in/news-and-media/#1632389651208-8ef00ffb-ba82

Kindly let me know how else can I add and improvise the article to ensure that this goes live.

Shadysbook (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadysbook The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read other stuff exists. Not every organization merits an article, even in the same field. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources, and there does not seem to be the coverage here. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 28

05:14:54, 28 February 2022 review of draft by 122.160.153.168


122.160.153.168 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I have added secondary reference to the draft page PERICENT, still it is rejected. I want to know the valid reason behind this.

I just declined the draft as blatant advertising! "to rapidly deliver powerful business process applications." " stands tall with a decade of experience in delivering workflow" "with that deep passion for technology" Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir

Can you please explain the reason behind not publishing my draft in detail

so that I can change them accordingly.122.160.153.168 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing can change that. The reasons have been given on the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As my submission is rejected , I have to create new page or do changes on previous page— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.153.168 (talk • contribs)

12:42:24, 28 February 2022 review of draft by Jackjohn15


Jackjohn15 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:39, 28 February 2022 review of submission by Slmer

Hello, Service Lifecycle Management(SLM) is the subset of Product Lifecycle Management that deals with after sales stage of a product. I think it should be part of Wikipedia for the following reasons: 1) Leading commercial Product Lifecycle Management(PLM) software vendors like Siemens Digital Industries Software, PTC and others refer to SLM as a domain within their PLM offering 2) There is already an SLM article in Wikipedia in German language and it makes sense to have one in English as well(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-Lifecycle-Management). 3) SLM is being referred to as a phase of PLM in the PLM article of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_lifecycle#Phase_4:_Service) 4) It represents a real approach of handling service data as part of the complete product lifecycle management

The current article is basic, but for the reasons above I think it represents a real topic, not a marketing trend, with actual need and a set of commercial vendors investing in solutions of that need. Hence I am kindly asking re-review of the article.

Many thanks

Slmer (talk) 13:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slmer The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. That other language Wikipedias have a particular article does not necessarily mean this one should. Each langauge version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. Regarding the draft itself, the sources do little more than define the term. They are not significant coverage of discussion of this terminology. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:22:39, 28 February 2022 review of submission by Antikcha Moran


Antikcha Moran (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Dr. Bidyananda Borkakoti --Orange Mike | Talk 01:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:46:59, 28 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Simona.lamba


Hi, my first article has been rejected...I´m working on it again and would like to know: • What is the specific criteria for when a sentence or piece of information requires a citation? • Are internal citations (i.e. links back to your own website) acceptable, or should they be avoided.

Thanks a lot!

Simona.lamba (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simona.lamba Just noting that it was only declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be reconsidered. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, a Wikipedia article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. Every substantive claim should have a citation(i.e not something like the sky being blue). 331dot (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:43, 28 February 2022 review of draft by Elonadam


Hello, Elmedin mot left Screen Media to join Eurovia! (As you can see at official web site http://screenmedia.mk/new/?p=4501 )

Elonadam (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:11:46, 28 February 2022 review of draft by Tobyhoward


Hi, I am a long-time WikiGnome and have now written my first article (about the 1980 TV movie "The Hard Way"). The reviewer has declined the draft article with the comment "This draft lacks Reception information, such as reviews. Please expand with Reception information." This is perfectly fair, and I would like to fix this. My question is: what reviews would be considered acceptable? I cannot find any 1980 reviews from the likes of Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc, and this is not surprising because this TV movie made little impact at the time and then disappeared. There are plenty of "viewer" reviews though (IMDb etc). Would these be acceptable to quote? What makes this movie notable for Wikipedia, IMHO, is that it featured two major stars, Patrick McGoohan and Lee Van Cleef, and has now become a cult movie attracting a lot of discussion (it is now available on DVD). I'd appreciate any advice! Thank you! -- Toby

Tobyhoward (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyhoward IMBD is not acceptable as a source as it is user-editable- even if it were, the reviews by ordinary people lack significance; we would need reviews by professional or at least recognized reviewers/critics. Note that a topic is typically not notable by association with notable people. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my identity

this is who I am and I dont want people claiming my pictures or my birthday or my identity. this is the reason why im coming to wikiepedia because too many strangers are claiming to be me. 19:35:26, 28 February 2022 review of submission by Rosa Lopez Hurtado Rosa Lopez Hurtado (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


im Rosa Lopez Hurtado its my identity im not sharing my legacy with strangers. I just want respect Ive been disrespected and humilliated in facebook because alot of females want my pictures and they also want my identity. Rosa Lopez Hurtado (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does any of this have to do with the Wikipedia? ValarianB (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rosa Lopez Hurtado I think you are confused about what Wikipedia is. This is not social media for people to write about themselves; this is an encyclopedia where independent editors write about various topics. If you have issues with Facebook, please contact Facebook regarding them. If your identity is being stolen, please contact your local authorities. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:34:25, 28 February 2022 review of submission by The Royal Kingdom of Igboland

Hello. I am requesting assistance because my article was declines and the reason why doesn't make sense. The feedback was reliable, independent sources were needed however, this is exactly what I provided. Please help or review again. The Royal Kingdom of Igboland (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Amaka The Igbo Princess --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:45:21, 28 February 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Hemantshah19


I am requesting assistance because I am still in my learning phase & I believe that this article on International Railway Summit is important for the global rail enthusiast as on this platform global railway leaders discuss the emerging rail technology and shaping the future rail industry.

[1]

https://shift2rail.org/calendar/international-railway-summit-3/

http://www.cer.be/events/international-events/10th-international-railway-summit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:3rd_International_Railway_Summit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2016_Christian_Kern_Railway_Summit.jpg

https://uic.org/com/enews/article/11th-international-railway-summit-to-debate-innovation-for-people-planet-and

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/new-trends-integrated-data-management-lessons-irs/

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/new-trends-integrated-data-management-lessons-irs/

https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/transport-leaders-reiterate-rail-transport-importance-to-fight-climate-change/

https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en/insights/railway-summit-2021-net-zero-mobility.html </ref> Hemantshah19 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://europa.eu/year-of-rail/events/10th-international-railway-summit_en https://www.itf-oecd.org/international-railway-summit

Hemantshah19 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:26:20, 28 February 2022 review of submission by Template:BuySomeApples

Hi Folks! Is the reason this was rejected because I need new/different references? Or because the business is not that famous? PECO is a cornerstone in industrial die casting and has been a major Oregon Manufacturer since 1938. Thanks for any more feedback! :-) Mottsarah (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mottsarah, Its that the article includes zero independent reliable sources. Please see WP:NCORP for further information.Slywriter (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 1

01:20:18, 1 March 2022 review of submission by WillsEdtior777

Draft:Da_Vinci_(magazine) WillsEdtior777 (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:29:52, 1 March 2022 review of draft by Cyuppyworld


09:29:52, 1 March 2022 review of submission by Cyuppyworld



May I know how can I improve this article to make it publish? I have made disclose as well. Thank you.

Cyuppyworld (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the propper code allowing you to submit the draft for review, however, submitting the draft at this time would be a waste of time as it would not be accepted. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Please see MOS:WORDS. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:16, 1 March 2022 review of submission by 183.83.161.112


183.83.161.112 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cinema
cinematographer


Murali MohanKasthala (born on 11 September 1996) is an Indian cinematographer primarily known for his work in the Telugu film industry. He began his career with assistant cinematographer with Om Namo Venkatesaya (2017) under the cinematographer of S Gopal Reddy And continued as associate cinematographer for Anando Brahma (2017) under the cinematographer of Anish Tharunkumar And worked as associate cinematographer for Rangasthalam(2018) under the cinematographer of R Ratnavelu and worked as associate cinematographer for Arjun Suravaram(2019)under the cinematographer of Surya. And as a cinematographer he completed Gentleman (2020 film) under the direction of Jadesh Kumar Hampi and going on with Model Telugu film (2021) as cinematographer under the direction of Murali K maddirala

14:55:14, 1 March 2022 review of draft by Sachitj


Dear editors, it is not possible to understand clearly what you expect me to improve in my page, I have provided two references from reliable news papers, If I am not doing in the right way, kindly please do it yourself. Requesting you to make it easy to understand for common people to follow easy steps and make Wikipedia more rich of information. Thanks!!

Sachitj (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1074678150"