Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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]
    I found this interesting in that these are sources for traditional publishers much more prominent than Wikipedia. In any case, other editors elsewhere did not question that notability of this individual with the same sources, especially considering the numerous individuals in this field who already have notability who less accomplished and have established far less longevity or whose pages are more akin to promotional than actual substance (see composer Michael Vincent Waller for a good example of an entry that appear to be written full of promotional quotes rather encyclopedic interest for detail).

In any case, it is useless to try to assess the response and I left this article behind. In any case, he is a notable figure - his collected artistic papers and scores, multiple awards, published articles, and books edited, published by traditional publishers, as well as his professional and public interactions indicate. It is not required that Wikipedia editors acknowledge that, although the very first editor had clearly stated Wikipedia standards of notability were not the problem. His artistic and pedagogical work was acknowledged by numerous real world accomplishments, the highlights of which were listed. He is older now and much less active. The SUNY Buffalo Peter Gena Collection, the award of the French government, the John Cage Reader book, and things like the podcasts with Studs Turkel, Other Minds, and his releases on famous experimental music labels, like Lovely Music, the documentation of the Kyle Gannarticle, etc. will suffice for a legacy and the Wikipedia article can come when are ready to cite better reasons. As it is useless, I gave this up. That said, I will mention the draft to others who have more time and wherewithal to meet your standards while I get back to my own work - with OUP. Like I said, the Peter Gena Collection at SUNY Buffalo, The John Cage Reader, the French government award, the decades of work on DNA Music, the New Music America festival, and the record releases on a historical music label, Lovely Music, known to all as the work of Robert Ashley’s widow, Mimi Johnson, that catalogues the most prominent musicians of that era, with diversity and identity factored in as well, these facts, existing by nature of their production, realization, and occurrence will do for Peter Gena. I think if there were editors that were familiar with the topics they edited this would be helpful. These sources would make more sense to them - for example, papers/collections are held by museums and institutions for notable artists in perpetuity requiring significant archival and research, time, and money and are awarded only in circumstances where it has been deemed of historic importance to preserve the physical materials, artworks, etc. Primary sources now removed had actually improved the draft by providing supplementary commentary on sources with significant independent coverage that offered the context. The removal of them weakened the draft and the resources for the readers. Other sources suggested by Wikipedia, including Wikiquotes, had also improved the draft. I will leave the draft will be given to someone who better understands what is up. I don’t have time to check this for typos, but it is accurate, as is the draft, which will later be taken up by someone more experienced in Wikipedia.2601:18E:8201:7B50:2C09:8AC3:9622:48E4 (talk) 16:55, 6 April 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]

@Llouest: I translated the message, and it seems like someone left you a message on your talk page on the Arabic Wikipedia (so nothing to worry about). In the future, please ask questions like this at the Teahouse. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Dravis williams: if you are writing for your company, you must disclose that you are a paid editor per WP:PAID. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Linusfrom: I highly doubt that they meet out notability guidelines, given that the only channel that comes up when I search that on Youtube has 6 subscribers. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:29, 7 March 2022 review of draft by George.kvakovszky


From content creator George.kvakovszky Monday March 7, 2022

As content creator, I object to the decision to delete the wikipedia entry ‘Bernard Parham’. I am afraid Crisco 1492, et al. have missed the point regarding Bernard Parham’s notability. Nobody claimed that the sequence of moves 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 had never been played before. Given enough time, a monkey typing at a keyboard, would reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. The point is that Bernard Parham took an obscure, discredited opening and played it during his entire chess career against Master level opposition, with success.

Parham’s maximum USCF rating was over 2300, which is International Master level, and he did this by playing the Parham Attack exclusively as White. Parham was also awarded the National Master title in 2002 by USCF. By the way, nobody in the world calls this opening the Danvers Opening. It is referred to, in over two hundred counties, as the Parham Attack. Deleting the entry ‘Bernard Parham’ would be a travesty, sham and a mockery. As content creator, it is my considered judgment that this entry is well referenced, and marking it as draft is also a mistake. This article should be restored as a wikipedia entry in its original format. Moreover, the Wikipedia entry ‘Danvers Opening’ should be renamed/redirected to the new entry ‘Parham Attack’.


George.kvakovszky (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@George.kvakovszky: the page that you created has not been deleted, it has just been moved to a draft. The editor who moved it expressed concerns that you are an undisclosed paid editor and/or have a conflict of interest. The draft will have to go through the AfC process before it is accepted. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an undisclosed paid editor and I do not have a conflict of interest. I am a volunteer contributor and I am retired. I am not related to Bernard parham (who is Black), while I am very much Caucasian, in fact my father was born in the Caucasus mountains of the Ukraine. I am an FIDE rated chess player andd found it curious, bizarre and quirky that wikipedia refers to the 'Parham Attack' as the 'Danvers Opening'
. This obscure opening was popularized by Bernard parham of Indianapolis. its i9s known as the parham Attack in at least two hundred countries in the World. Infinity years of competitive chess I have never hear anyone refer to this opening as the Danvers Opening. NationalChessMaster Bernard parham is one of very few living players who has a chess opening named after him. The majority are Russian. I am not aware of any other living US chess player who has this distinction George.kvakovszky March 7, 2022 George.kvakovszky (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:45, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Obyno2020


The editor claims that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notablity standard, this is not true as the subject is widely known in Nigeria as has been verified by Facebook and Instagram.

Obyno2020 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Obyno2020: "Widely known in a region" - i.e. fame/infamy - does not equal notability as Wikipedia defines it. Especially so on social media, which is very much gameable. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
None of your sources are any good; the reject looks perfectly justifiable to me. Since it's been brought up in the reviewer notes, what is your connexion to her? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I have no connexions to her. I am interested in documenting notable figures from South East Nigeria. I will look for more independent sources and revert. Obyno2020 (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:03, 7 March 2022 review of submission by EdwinKibs


The editor claims that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notablity standard, and it does not need to be reviewed again. i am kindly requesting for a review of my submission.

EdwinKibs (talk) 20:29:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdwinKibs: Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
In sum, none of your sources are any good, and none of your edits have added any sort of source we can use. The rejection seems perfectly fine to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


22:33:56, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Sungwoo-Yang


I'm trying to create a Wiki page for Chattanooga Solar Decathlon team, but it was declined. There is a wiki page for Illinois Solar Decathlon team, and I'm not sure what are key differences from theirs and our team. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Draft:Chattanooga Solar Decathlon

Illinois Solar Decathlon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungwoo-Yang (talk • contribs) 22:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sungwoo-Yang I have fixed your links to proper internal links, the whole URL is unnecessary. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", it has articles. Beware in using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles. It could be that the other articles are also inappropriate- as I think is the case here. The article you cite has similar problems to your draft. An article about your organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 8

00:22:17, 8 March 2022 review of submission by Yojana Mohata

I submitted my draft but was declined. So can you help me with what changes do I have to make or what is the problem which is happening?

Yojana Mohata (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link. @Yojana Mohata: your draft was declined because most of the references are not reliable. Twitter, Youtube, and Wikipedia usually shouldn't be used as sources, and most of the rest of the citations are primary sources. Please remove those references and replace them with things such as in-depth news articles on the topic. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

00:39:24, 8 March 2022 review of submission by FearGame


FearGame (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Im going to make it opinion-less and less promotional. Also, Im including many more links to make it notable.

Does anything in particular bother you?

00:44:05, 8 March 2022 review of submission by Tyscutist18

The organization is known for its services and reference links are proving the same. The idea or intention of this information will not bring business to the organization, instead, prove the existence of the organization. There is no intention of advertisement there, in the article was written with the existing page on Wikipedia. Tyscutist18 (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyscutist18 Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of an organization, that is considered promotional here. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. How do I go about it? Can you guide me? Tyscutist18 (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tyscutist18 First, if you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures.(being an employee counts as being paid even if you have not been specifically paid or asked to edit). If you are associated with this organization, I advise you against proceeding; in my experience organization representatives are far too close to their organization to be able to edit about their organization as Wikipedia requires. The best indicator that a company meets the definition of a notable company is if independent editors take note of the company's coverage in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it. Trying to force the issue does not often work.
If you still want to proceed, please read Your First Article as well as the definition of a notable organization to see if your company meets it. Then- while setting aside everything you know about the organization and all materials put out by the it- gather at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company, that was not prompted by the organization or based on information fed by the organization(such as press releases, interviews with staff, announcements of routine activities). Any article about your organization must summarize these sources. If you wish to find out before attempting to write about the organization, you can put your three best independent reliable sources here and we can tell you if they actually establish that your organization is notable. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:01:44, 8 March 2022 review of submission by DingoPuppy3

Because of her many contributions to the writing culture of America, Bernadette Baran is significant. This article is being added simply to enhance the database of Wikipedia and not for personal or advertisement purposes. The nature of this article directly aligns with the spirit of Wikipedia. Please reconsider adding this so as to educate the people. Thank you for your time. DingoPuppy3 (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DingoPuppy3 Your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. You offer nothing other than her personal website. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person or a notable creative professional. If you just want to tell the world about her, you should use social media or a website with less stringent requirements where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:32:04, 8 March 2022 review of submission by Mapotakes API


Mapotakes API (talk) 04:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mapotakes API: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This would be a textbook no-context deletion were it in mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:55:04, 8 March 2022 review of draft by 151.48.199.65


I need a help about the text and also the quotes and I'd like understand what's the problem. I reduced the text to the minimum, to be as neutral as possible but it's not okay yet. I followed your guide lines about the quotes too, but the way I did it's not the right one.

151.48.199.65 (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:01, 8 March 2022 review of submission by GregorSun

- How many resources Do I need and what are reliable soureces? I have a minium of 10 different companies/research institutes which refer to CAN XL? - I rewrote the article that to be more neutral. Would else could I improve? GregorSun (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 9

00:27:37, 9 March 2022 review of submission by 92.53.57.220


92.53.57.220 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:24:29, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Dgregory4

I have a question about notability. A reviewer said that the subject of my article did not satisfy the notability criterion. However, on the wiki page detailing the notability criteria for academics, the first criterion states that "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Subsection "c" notes that this first criterion may be met through the a publication of a festschrift in honor of the subject of the article: "(c) The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses." Since the subject of my article did have a festschrift published in his honor by a non-vanity press (Wipf and Stock), it seems like he does meet the notability criteria for academics. Indeed, the wiki page on notability states that "Academics meeting anyone of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." I have demonstrated that he had a festschrift published in his honor by noting it in the body of the article. Further, except for one citation, all the content in the article is supported by references in the festschrift (which was published by a reputable third party). It is possible to ask someone to re-evaluate the notability of the subject of my article? I appreciate any help you can provide in this matter. Dgregory4 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4 Dgregory4 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:46:14, 9 March 2022 review of submission by AllOfUsAreDeadFan4565

How do I put an Country Flag on a template

AllOfUsAreDeadFan4565 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:10:59, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Johnmclane2

Hello, this article got declined and the tag said to ask for help here, without any other explanation and also I was not given a chance to resubmit again. First, I am a paid editor hired by the subject to help him and I have already disclosed my association. Second, as the subject has explained to me and as you can see from the history, the page was declined before and deleted in AFD, but this version of the page is completely different, much improved and he has had many new articles about him since 2020, so the page should not be solely declined based on the past AFD and should be looked at from scratch. Please let me know if someone can review it and tell me what the issues are. Subject has over 50 citations used here, and probably at least 30+ more that I didn't use. Johnmclane2 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnmclane2 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:10:24, 9 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SourceRight


hello... i need help with creating the page for actress jonita doda. can u please guide or give contact of the right person to create the content.thanks 14:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)SourceRight (talk)

SourceRight (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SourceRight Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Your draft article was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the correction. since it was my first contribution i wasn't a pro. but i have edited the article completely as advised. so can u please guide me on how to re submit it. SourceRight (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:43:08, 9 March 2022 review of draft by Claire Leaf


Claire Leaf (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Leaf You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this submission now be reviewed and suggestions made please. Draft:Seizure Rescue Breath Claire Leaf (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:43, 9 March 2022 review of draft by Claire Leaf


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Seizure_Rescue_Breath Seizure Rescue Breath submission declined by @Robertsky 4 days ago. Comment: Before pushing this article to the mainspace, the sentences: Seizure Rescue Breath provides an alternative approach to stopping seizures. The simple technique can be applied as part of the patients current Seizure Emergency Care Plan, in consultation with the individual’s medical team. needs to be addressed.

I have edited the submission to remove sentences flagged and added detail requested. please advise on how I can progress this submission as it is my first one and has taken several months already. Thanks in advance!! Claire

Claire Leaf (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Leaf (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1076134340"