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 Linusfrom (talk | contribs) at 12:03, 7 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


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

Totally unsourced and rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Yes, there are two sources in Draft:Devendra Khandelwal. One of them mentions that he is the chairman of the IIMC, and the other one says that he has shot eighteen documentaries about Mahatma Gandhi, and that he has been a judge for the National Award and the Screen Film Awards. But the draft contains a lot more information, about things like his education, his date of birth, his production company, and so on. Where does that information come from? A biographical article about a living person has particularly strong requirements for sourcing – as you were told last time you asked about this draft. Sources need to be independent, secondary, and provide in-depth coverage of the person (not just a mention of his name). And in addition, the draft is still very promotionally written, so it would not be accepted for that reason, either. --bonadea contributions talk 17:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:42, 1 March 2022 review of submission by Snehil4


I have tried creating this page for 5-6 times and every time it gets rejected or deleted. I am not able to understand the problem here so please help me out here. My college (IIT Delhi) is organizing a technical fest and I am given the job to create a wiki page for the fest but I am not able to do so. Snehil4 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A university fest or gathering is most likely not going to be notable enough to justify an encyclopedia article. ValarianB (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:37, 1 March 2022 review of submission by Sanskriti88

Please advise whether the article is natural and is notable as per coverage in secondary source for this thought leadership on the real situation! Sanskriti88 (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Garbage language like "breakthrough company" "disrupted itself" "thought leadership company" "solid foundation of digital transformation" "bringing disruption" and "helping to well-known global companies" mean you're writing an advertisement, and one apparently aimed at corporate morons who are drawn to buzzwords as flies are drawn to fresh excrement. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:12, 1 March 2022 review of submission by 2001:56A:7780:8000:DC7A:F87F:CA61:5CCA


2001:56A:7780:8000:DC7A:F87F:CA61:5CCA (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC) my thing was declined :(([reply]

Unless you can link to the draft in question we can't offer any advice. We're not psychic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

00:59:27, 2 March 2022 review of submission by Mapotakes API


Mapotakes API (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:35, 2 March 2022 review of submission by Mesbahfarag


Mesbahfarag (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to publish an article about my company profile with all data. this request had been rejected around 3 times every time i find a missing info from m,y side, yet the last time I upload the article also had been rejected please let me know ASAP what should i do and if you have any tutorial videos about how to create an article and publish it share it with me.

Mesbahfarag please see WP:PAID FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:10:31, 2 March 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:F920:8E0:6D49:4813:2405:FF6E

This is for my Roblox myth I really need it to grow!! please. 2600:1700:F920:8E0:6D49:4813:2405:FF6E (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a self-promotion tool. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:58, 2 March 2022 review of submission by Sk Wasim Akram 13

This article have enough notation, he is an Music Artist, Youtuber with over 1 milliion subscriber and also we saw him in various reality show as a dancer. Link from TimesOfIndia News Website: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/tv/hindi/indias-best-dancer-finalist-mukul-gain-on-his-journey-competition-and-more/videoshow/79324478.cms

Sk Wasim Akram 13 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sk Wasim Akram 13 I reviewed it. I also note the image on Commons has debatable licencing.
Are you in any way associated with Mukul Gain? FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:02:59, 2 March 2022 review of submission by Shadysbook


Help us to take this live. Any other information that might help us to take this live

Shadysbook (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shadysbook Who is "us"? If you represent or work for Oasis Fertility, that must be declared per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. Only a single person should be operating your account.
Please see my reply from February 27 above. The draft will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:07, 2 March 2022 review of submission by MooseMelon

Why was the draft page "Krismas" denied????????????? I would like to know changes i cold make so i can improve my draft! Thank You!!! MooseMelon (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MooseMelon No improvement is possible, that is what rejected means. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. Please see the five pillars and Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:14, 2 March 2022 review of draft by Llouest


Question: Hi, why my draft on the American impressionist painter 'William Samuel Horton' (Draft:William Samuel Horton), started on November 21, and progressively perfected in the meantime, is still not approved? The reviewer, nicknamed 'Hoary', had initially commented that there are not enough serious references, which is odd as I included in my draft many more official references on this artist's life and work that what there has been in the Wikipedia French article on this person (to which I also added myself some missing references) which has been published on the French Wikipedia for over two years. Please advise, Regards, Llouest Llouest (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:14, 2 March 2022 review of submission by MooseMelon


We changed around a couple of things to make it seem more Wikipedia-like. We tried to clean it up and hope you will re-review it.

MooseMelon (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MooseMelon: please see the response to your previous inquiry, it already said no amount of editing can the make subject notable. The only thing that could make it notable for Wikipedia is reliable sources talking about it in published media. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:10, 2 March 2022 review of submission by KenKaneki1803


Hi there, I just submitted a descriptive article named "Tryst - IIT Delhi" from my account "KenKaneki1803". Earlier the article submitted by my subordinate was deleted several times, due to the reasons that I am yet to figure. Now when I myself tried to submit the content after making suitable changes, the reviewer thinks that I am the same person creating multiple accounts. I want you to know that I am a different individual, and henceforth request you to please assist me in making this submission possible.

KenKaneki1803 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KenKaneki1803 We have no interest in anything you or your subordinates wish to say about what appears to be your company or employer. That is against the purpose of Wikipedia. We care only about what is recorded in independent reliable sources.
You appear to be blocked as a Sockpuppet. You are also a WP:PAID editor. This is an amateur project. Paid editors need to behave much better than this. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:36:47, 2 March 2022 review of draft by Dougwill2


Preparing article about American inventor with 31 patents from 1899 - 1930, listed in table with #, Pub date, Title, Applicant, Inventor(s). Should I link patent #'s to USPTO database (scanned images and text of original patent) or Google patent database (scanned images and searchable text); or both?

Dougwill2 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dougwill2 Neither. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; government documents/records are considered primary sources. The article should only summarize what those independent sources say. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:53:27, 2 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SteveJClay


Hi, I require help with my article. can some please help me?

SteveJClay (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:10:45, 2 March 2022 review of draft by Dougwill2


Per prior inquiry re patent links: the noted patent table IS a summary table, following a fully-referenced bio article. If a reader wishes to see details of a particular patent doc it is easier to have a ready link available than none. But your comment is useful, as it states Wiki ranks gov sources like USPTO over Google, even tho Google's searchable text may have more utility. Thx.

Dougwill2 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougwill2: Both of them are useless - We treat government documents as primary sources, and in almost all circumstances Google and other search engines cannot provide enough detail to cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:45, 2 March 2022 review of draft by Bocarlson10


Hello, 9 months ago I created a draft article for an organization, Global Americans. To comply with the notability guidelines, I included a few independent, secondary, reliable sources, but the article was rejected for a lack of independent sources. I've now added several more independent, secondary, and reliable sources with significant coverage. These include a staff-written article in Forbes, which is recognized as a reliable source in the perennial sources list. Most of the references are from Spanish-language media, so they are not yet on the perennial sources list. These include Milenio, Las 2 Orillas, Voice of America, Perfil, and El Financiero—a Mexican periodical whose partner company, Bloomberg, is on the perennial sources list. Would you let me know if these sources will qualify the article for publication? If not, please let me know what other edits I should make! Thank you.

Bocarlson10 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bocarlson10: Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
I don't see any of the non-routine, in-depth independent coverage with competent editorial oversight and identifiable authors that we're looking for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thank you for the detailed and prompt reply, Jéské! I will hold off on resubmitting the article for publication. If other, reliable sources publish significant coverage on the organization in the coming months to establish notability, I will edit and resubmit.

March 3

08:38:32, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Sethboyk2

Have had the draft for this page rejected, suggestion is that the references are 'passing' as far as i can tell each of the references are from independent press publications and directly relate to the topic referenced, none of the articles are sponsored or paid for and as far as I can tell the company has at least as significant presence in the industry and sport as other companies already present on Wikipedia, any help appreciated!

Sethboyk2 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sethboyk2 The draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted, but a decline means that it can be submitted. Please understand that each draft is judged on its own merits, and the existence of other articles has no bearing on this one. It could be that these other articles you have seeen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, so it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. See other stuff exists.
The issue is not necessarily the specific sources themselves, but their content. The first source you give is based on interviews and a tour of the company factory given by the company. The second source describe the manufacturing process they use and has very little about the company itself. The third is based on an interview with the company founder; interviews are primary sources and do not establish notability. The fourth source is a promotional piece about the company, written by someone invited in by the company. The fifth is a brief profile-like entry about the company, not significant coverage. The last sources seems to describe a new type of helmet technology and mentions the company little(from what I could tell, it is lengthy).
A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article. I see that other than one edit twelve years ago, you have exclusively edited about this company. If you have a connection to this company, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:12:40, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Vandanadhasmana


Vandanadhasmana (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied it from my own website. it is my company website and I have written the article for the same.

Vandanadhasmana Yes, we don't want you to do that. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself, it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. Your company website is the proper place for you to tell the world about your company.
The Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to formally declare your paid editing relationship, see WP:PAID, as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:35, 3 March 2022 review of submission by NoelNixon2005

Hi Sir. The film got officially announced yesterday and here is the article https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/pathan-teaser-shah-rukh-khan-calls-india-his-religion-deepika-padukone-john-abraham-7797100/ NoelNixon2005 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NoelNixon2005 As the reviewer said, films generally do not merit articles before their release. See WP:NFF. The only exceptions would be if there is some aspect of the production of the film itself that receives significant coverage and is notable, beyond mere announcements of casting, crew, the commencement of principal photography, etc. An example of that is Rust (suspended film). As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. Once the film is released, it will then be notable and you may resubmit this then. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:42, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Kishore pathikonda


Am Kishore pathikonda actor Pavan acharya "S big fan I have written about him draft article but his draft has been declined I have given all information about him in draft but not accepted are they didn't moved to article space so kindly approve it his Wikipedia's draft and moved page to article space Even I have given reliable sources but not accepted so kindly fix this issue

Thank you Regards Pavan Acharya Film actor and Telivesion actor

Kishore pathikonda (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore pathikonda Please read the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, it is strongly advised that people not attempt to write about themselves. There are also reasons that an article about you is not necessarily a good thing. It appears that you do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not a reliable source. Wikidata is not a reliable source. (Google) Searches are never a reliable source, due to their dynamics (Individual search results might be). The Morning Herald Piece is a repub of a press release. The Times of India links are dead (and it isn't particularely reliable anyway. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:20, 3 March 2022 review of submission by 2601:18E:8201:7B50:806F:263C:209C:4184

I request this draft be re-reviewed - Draft:Peter Gena (without re-submitting) for the reason that the editor who declined cited "non-reliable sources" - unreliable sources may, in this draft according to this rejection, include The New York Times, National Podcast by national journalist and cultural figure Studs Terkel (who is a living figure on Wikipedia), the library archives of the State University of New York, Buffalo - collected papers of this living composer, and the French government, and others. It was a bizarre rejection on that basis. I wrote most of the article and could not parse how The New York Times and SUNY Buffalo, The French Government, and others are perceived as inadequate sources. Can you? A lot of articles would need to be taken down under those editorial decisions. :) I would also ask for a review of this editor for their editing privileges. They did not provide other reasoning of merit. I look forward to the exchange, especially with respect to the NYT, French Government, SUNY Buffalo, Studs Terkel, The Chicago Reader, and other rejected, unreliable sources. Thank you. 2601:18E:8201:7B50:806F:263C:209C:4184 (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All references to his own website should be removed. In most cases the issues are not with the sources themeselves, but their content. If the coverage is not significant enough, the person would not merit an article. Please describe your three best independent reliable sources below. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually only two brief references to his website? Including one that is a record of a book? I suppose that could just be the publisher's website of the book? The only thing on the page is the book's publishing info. You ask for the three best independent reliable sources.

1. This is from the State University of Buffalo of New York. It is this composer's archive at a university library, i.e. his collected papers preserved for posterity. It lists numerus items including scores, letters, photographs and serves to validate the fact that this composer is both a historic figure by nature of having an institutional archive of merit in perpetuity (or at least as long as the university exists, it is part of New York state as a state in the US, I guess you could both check the Department of Education in the Federal government to confirm New York's eduation department and also the Constitution to confirm that New York is part of the USA to confirm viability overseen by the Department of Education. In all serious! Here is the link to New York's SUNY BUFFALO ARCHIVE OF PETER GENA: https://www.empireadc.org/search/catalog/nbuumu_ubmu0085

2. The New York Times. Widely known throughout the world as the best English language newspaper, but refer to Wikipedia article for further verification of The New York Times, maybe they were from another country that has not heard of the paper. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1982/07/08/260913.html?pageNumber=60

3. It was hard to choose a third, but I would the Studs Terkel about Podcast about John Cage, see Wikipedia, one of America's most important composers, and also the importance and validity of Studs Terkel (again see Wikipedia).

To me, the most profound verification is in the archive at SUNY Buffalo. In general, if an archive at a university has been dedicated to your life and work, it presumes international and national importance, and also provide bounteous documentation. The other sources in addition to the New York Times and the Studs Terkel broadcast mostly back up biographical material and also proof of the importance of the research importance of his work as a professor for 40 years, as well as document his work producing major musical festivals in the 1980s.

The coverage complaint was superficial without commentary, which is why I ask that the editor's privileges be reviewed. There is no further commentary explaining or discussing what coverage is or is not significant and how the article can provide acceptable "coverage". ""Coverage" as a term strikes me as something that amounts to "media coverage" on the internet - I am not sure I have ever heard of books, recordings, inclusions in museums and exhibitions, and archives referred to as "coverage". Have you? In any case, without inventing new meanings for words, let's assume the editor meant "a variety of credible sources" by abbreviation. I believe the sources referred to, in addition to those cited in the article are more than enough to establish functional meaning for publication. 2 out of 12 sources refer to the composer's website, maybe 1/6 is too much? I think a lot of articles would have to be deleted if this formula of percentiles was used. However, if the references should be deleted, I will do that now, the information is duplicated elsewhere. The prospect of removing personal websites as sources across Wikipedia will require a great deal of editing and I will only be able to do this draft, I hope that is ok! 2601:18E:8201:7B50:B876:D611:3420:333E (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:8201:7B50:B876:D611:3420:333E (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Studs Terkel podcast is not a source for Wikipedia. So, it has been removed as a source and only used as an external link. There are so many other sources that are reliable, but I suppose I would go with the Chicago Reader, as it has a circulation of several million and online access, the latter of which seems to be the relevant reference for the online encyclopedia. But, you could also go with any number of the academic papers on JSTOR or the important Lovely Music record label recordings or articles by Kyle Gann as sourced or otherwise. 2601:18E:8201:7B50:B876:D611:3420:333E (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have some good here, but this touches on an area where I have erred in the past (i.e. WP:NACADEMIC notability claims) and so I will defer to someone who has considerably more experience with such matters. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYT is a rundown of the festival acts. However, NYT does not mention the subject by name and that entire paragraph is a bit of WP:SYNTH using the three references. Didn't review anything else, just saw that the NYT wasn't evaluated. Oh and for WP:NACADEMIC, google scholar is useful to see how often they are cited by others.Slywriter (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:07, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Hanaan dar

The page is about a movie, which is now announced, I request humbly, to review the page once again.

Hanaan dar (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:41:11, 3 March 2022 review of draft by Mobius Gerig


So, I made a draft for the Atlantic hurricane season after this season, and I want to know when it would be feasible to put the draft up to review. I do not want to be a too-sooner again. Not that's too bad when it happens once, but still.
Mobius Gerig (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:06, 3 March 2022 review of submission by Leon04ni

My draft got rejected. this is my first article that ive written and Im not entirely sure why it was rejected, if I could have some extra clarification that would be really helpful Leon04ni (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leon04ni It was only declined, not rejected, meaning resubmission is possible. Your draft is only sourced to IMDB, which is not a reliable source as it is user editable. Other claims are unsourced. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. All claims about a living person must be sourced, see WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 4

00:11:06, 4 March 2022 review of submission by 73.61.15.86

i am making this page for a friend and everything i say in it is a joke so like can I keep it up for him to be able to see it please 73.61.15.86 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Find somewhere else. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:28, 4 March 2022 review of submission by 123.208.83.210


123.208.83.210 (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi please check these articles shouldn’t this merit him a article?

Both sources are primary, repeating only what he says about himself. (One of the two sources had been added twice, but the duplicate has been removed). He makes quite a positive impression in terms of what he wants to achieve and why, less so in his provably false claims of being the first reality star in Afghanistan. That does not change the fundamental issue though: until there are sources showing that he meets at least these criteria, there can't be an article about him. --bonadea contributions talk 11:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Fair enough boss 11:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.208.83.210 (talk)

Request on 11:42:24, 4 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jirayeni


Hi, I am start to contributing Wikipedia and my first article about a film producer which her data is available on imdb.com but my referenced data was declined. How can I improve my article to pass review?

Jirayeni (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jirayeni: IMDb is not an acceptable source what-so-ever, and nor are her own website or Iran government websites. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:39, 4 March 2022 review of submission by Maximivanchuk



Maxim Ivanchuk Is an Ukraine plastic surgeon who is been called "The Father of Microsurgery" for his contributions in the history and development of reconstructive microsurgical procedures.[1] He is a past president of the Ukraine Society for Surgery of the Hand, the International Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery, and the Ukraine Association of Plastic Surgery.He served as a clinical professor of surgery at both Stanford University and the University of California - San Francisco.

References

  1. ^ Article in International Business Times Retrieved 24 February 2022


Maximivanchuk (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maximivanchuk: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. One source cannot support an entire artiole of any length, let alone a biography of a living/recently-departed person which requires a strong source for every claim that could be challenged. What is your connexion to Ivanchuk? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:27, 4 March 2022 review of draft by Emmy1707


Hello, I have changed the writing style of the article and some sources and would like to know if it is correct now. Thank you very much for feedback.Emmy1707 (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Emmy1707 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emmy1707. You will find out if it is correct when the draft is next reviewed, probably within the next 3 months or so. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. It is not a shortcut through the pool of submissions awaiting review. Do not post here every time you make a change and want a review. The other 3,000 waiting editors also want their submissions reviewed. Be patient. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I will wait patiently. I thought because of the last feedback, I could ask again. Thanks anyway.Emmy1707 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:16, 4 March 2022 review of submission by DrobertiACDCSGomez2022


DrobertiACDCSGomez2022 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrobertiACDCSGomez2022 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced; a Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:09, 4 March 2022 review of draft by Spiel


Spiel (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This organization has annual awards of some renown. I made the page initially because of the awards, but also because it is a unique group in New Zealand that supports writers and readers.

Please tell me what else you would like to see here.

Spiel, you seem to be relying mostly on the subject's own words. You need to find independent reliable sources that discuss the subject.Slywriter (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 5

00:57:52, 5 March 2022 review of submission by Andretan1985

Hello, my draft was declined because it "sounded too much like an advertisement".

First, I'd like to point out that I'm a father whose kid uses the baby product brand that I've written an article about, and I do not have any commercial relationship with the company, and I am not being paid to do this. I really liked the brand, and was looking for further information about the brand on Wiki and discovered it didn't have a page, which inspired me to research and write one.

Having said that, I tried my best to follow Wiki guidelines, ensuring that every fact or assertion made was backed up by credible sources. In researching about the brand, I have deliberately avoided using any material from the brand's own webpages, and I have found a wealth of sources, mostly from national newspapers and government websites. (This brand is quite notable within Singapore and has been reported on often).

I feel that writing about a commercial brand necessarily entails describing it, and that inevitably is going to sound like it's "advertising" the brand if it has some claims to fame or notable achievements. I've tried to mitigate that by sticking to factual assertions of what the brand does, and has accomplished, and I believe I have ensured that every such fact is referenced, to show this is not my assertion or something that comes from the brand's own self-advertisement. I've tried to keep my writing as neutral as possible, only sticking to paraphrasing what has already been said in the sources or newspaper articles that I referenced.

I don't understand therefore how it can still be declined for sounding like an advertisement. I also don't understand why the grounds for declining also includes asking me to ensure my sources are reputable/credible, or even that they are referenced at all. Are national newspapers and government websites not reputable or authoritative enough? Have I not found enough? The Wiki notability guidelines even say three separate sources talking about the subject are enough. I have twenty or so.

How can I improve this further, or what specifically about my writing "sounds like an advertisement", so I can improve it and ensure it meets whatever criteria it falls short of? If it needs toning down, do give me some pointers as to where or how.

I'd really appreciate any help you can give me on how to make this better. Thank you!

Andretan1985 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andretan1985 You spend much of the draft talking about the company's products and their features. If you are writing about about company, the article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about the company itself, not its products. Furthermore, awards do not usually warrant a mention unless the award itself merits an article(like an Academy Award or Tony Award). That the company was on a top selling list of a particular website is meaningless without context. Why is that significant?(rhetorical question) 331dot (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dotThank you for your reply! Some questions as I ponder how best to edit:
1) Products: In this case, what makes the company notable is its products, no? Would it be acceptable to have a brief summary of the products, rather than cutting it all completely? In the case of the products, I ensured that what was being said about the products was only what was reported in the independent articles and reports I referred to, instead of the company's own info. Would that also be counted as part of what independent sources say about the company?
2) Awards: I hear you about the notability of the awards themselves. I will go check up each of these awards to see what has a wiki article. I know for sure that at least one of them does.
3) Top selling list: Well in this particular case, that the brand was on the top selling list of a particular website was of note because this is one of the largest e-commerce sites in the world, so this is a pretty impressive thing for a small local brand, but I'm unsure if that context, even when supplied, is important? Do advise--if still not applicable, I'll chuck it out the window.
Thanks so much for your help, please bear with me!
Andretan1985 (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:58, 5 March 2022 review of submission by Dougwill2


Draft Article: Joseph Archibald Williams

I am puzzled by reviewer BuySomeApples comments on March 3 regarding reliable sources in rejecting the above article for wiki publication. The draft article references a scholarly 3-part series (fully researched and footnoted) in a magazine (The Vintage Ford Magazine, in print from 1966 to current day); the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) patent archives; and Harvard University's case law database. The 1st reference is allowable under Wiki guidelines; the second is an official US government info source; and the 3rd is a highly regarded institutional archive of government case law. Not reliable sources? Pls advise. Thx.

Dougwill2 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told before the United States Patent and Trademark Office is a primary source, we require independent sources, also see WP:PATENTS which says "Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery.... Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents." Theroadislong (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dougwill2: I suggest you start reading and taking on-board what we've said here; refusing to accept valid criticism is a very good way to get any further queries about this draft summarily reverted off this page as badgering until you get the answer you want. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys (a fair assumption of gender, based on recent reporting from independent reliable sources): Per wp.patents, ""An issued patent may be considered a reliable source for the existence of an invention, the names of the inventors, the date of the patent, and the overall content of what was invented." All patents mentioned, cited, or summarized in article narrative and supporting summary table are issued patents, not applications. Again from wp.patents: "Patent applications that are not yet issued are self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes." No patent applications are cited, no content from the issued patents, no puffery, no promotion here (the K-W company went out of business in 1940)--none. Only 2 issued patents are directly cited in the article narrative, so not too much emphasis. 31 patents (that we know of so far) issued to the subject over 30 yrs: fact, and notable. Subject invented tech that contributed to making the Model T the most successful automobile of its era; fact, and notable. Would you say in a writer's bio that she wrote some books without including as complete a list as possible (from actual research) of their titles and pub dates? Subject was litigious, per several refs to independent and reliable case law database: fact, and notable, as making case law is making law--ask an attorney. There's more in this vein, as subject was suing others for infringement while possibly engaging in infringement himself. You can still buy some of the original devices invented and manufactured by subject, over 100 yrs later, on eBay: fact, notable, interesting, and worthy of mention. Wiki review process: the last reviewer noted a date discrepancy by saying. "something fishy here, etc." From the narrative, it was an obvious typo. A typo! Comments made that reveal a cursory reading of the narrative and scolding based on a cursory reading of wiki guidelines are a negative reflection on the wiki submission process, and look like trollery. Respectfully submitted. Dougwill2 (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougwill2 We would in fact write a bio without including a complete list of a writer's works! For some writers, a separate bibliography article might be appropriate. But usually a wikipedia article on a writer lists only their most significant works. Imagine the mess on articles about scientists if we listed every single one of their publications! Everything you mention here may well be factual and interesting, but what we're looking for to determine "notability" isn't "is this a remarkable thing" but "have several secondary sources taken an interest in this thing". -- asilvering (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:13, 5 March 2022 review of submission by Ardakocaa

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

im a musical artist, i want a wikipedia page for my name, what can i do for creating my page?

Ardakocaa (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ardakocaa. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will eventually create an article about you. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site like Facebook or LinkedIn. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:25, 5 March 2022 review of draft by Jhirak.camel


Hi, I'm creating a Wiki entry for a woman named Blanche Brenton Carey. How do I add a picture to the Infobox? It wouldn't let me when I tried because I haven't done 10 edits. Is there anything I can do or do I publish without a picture until I've done the 10 edits?

Jhirak.camel (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jhirak.camel Images/pictures are not relevant to the draft approval process. Don't worry about adding an image until your draft is approved and in the encyclopedia. You have more than 10 edits so you should be able to upload images, though. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:34, 5 March 2022 review of draft by Oye palanpuri


Oye palanpuri (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:41:49, 5 March 2022 review of submission by 103.21.125.78

I don't know how Wikipedia assign reviewers, I have created a page for a department of an institute of importance in India, actually, this institute's rank is first in science and technology but reviewers did not find this noticeable, I want a reviewer who is educated enough to know that what a research institute is? 103.21.125.78 (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The interdisciplinary programme you wrote about should be covered in the article about the institute, IIT Bombay, not in a new stand alone article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Parts of schools and school-related organizations. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to guarantee that a reviewer has any particular knowledge or skill set, and we have no way to verify such a thing in any event. It also should not be relevant as the only issue with a draft is if it meets the relevant criteria. If you would prefer, there are other encyclopedia writing projects that limit participation to experts. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before we even get to the "need an expert", the article fails basic wikipedia policies. External links should not be in body. There's no claim to notability as not a single independent source is provided that discusses the subject. It is written from the POV of the subject, a common mistake for connected writers. Fix those fundamentals first and then you can question whether an editor made a mistake in rejecting your draft.Slywriter (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:42:56, 5 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC



2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Please create the page Bunda Meena as it is truth[reply]

Wikipedia has no interest in "truth" we only report what reliable sources say about a topic. And "for the creation of the panorama of this king." makes no sense? Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:45:00, 5 March 2022 review of submission by 2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC


2405:205:1285:A810:4BEB:8450:1EB1:D5AC (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please create this page as it is notable

Listen to the advice you're being given and stop being obstinate. You've drowned the draft in redundant and crappy citations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

11:52:09, 6 March 2022 review of submission by MNWiki845


MNWiki845 (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MNWiki845 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by reviewers; unreleased films rarely merit articles, see WP:NFF. Once the film is released, it will be notable as defined by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:51, 6 March 2022 review of submission by Tdc-12


Changli Crown is a company, produces pedestal fans in China, I decided to create article, with respect.

Tdc-12 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tdc-12. Most companies are not notable (not suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles). You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. Edit other topics. See Wikipedia:Community portal if you aren't sure how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 7

05:26:57, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Engjaipur


Engjaipur (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:52, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Llouest


Hi,

I received this morning the following message, allegedly from a Wikipedia address.

Is this message legitimate, or is it a fraud?

If it is legitimate, what does it mean?

Thanks,

Best regards,

Llouest

________________________________________________________________________________ De : ويكيبيديا <wiki@wikimedia.org> Envoyé : lundi 7 mars 2022 02:03 À : Llouest <ljlouest@msn.com> Objet : بعث ‪HitomiAkane‬ لك رسالة في ويكيبيديا 


	 	بعث ‪HitomiAkane‬ رسالةً إليك في صفحة نقاشك.

اعرض الرسالة ‪HitomiAkane‬ اعرض التعديلات



للتحكم في ما هي رسائل البريد الإلكتروني التي نرسلها إليك، تحقق من تفضيلاتك. Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA

_________________________________________________________________________________


Llouest (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:21, 7 March 2022 review of submission by EdwinKibs

10:40:21, 7 March 2022 review of submission by EdwinKibs


EdwinKibs (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:37, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Dravis williams


my draft Draft:PERICENT has been decline due to promotional , may i know in which section it look like promotional Dravis williams (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dravis williams The entire thing. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company- and not based on any materials put out by the company like press releases or the mere reporting of its activities- showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you are associated with this company, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:58:16, 7 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Dravis williams



Dravis williams (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Hello I have trying to publish my page on Wikipedia from last 1 month but every time I got deny. All my references is from independent media . Can you please help me to publish my page forward.[reply]

It will be really helpful for me and my organization.

12:03:26, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Linusfrom


Linusfrom (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

I want you to check again. Becouse The person Im Writeing about is a professional at Fortnite. I kindly ask you to let me publish this.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1075741344"