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 SourceRight (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 10 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 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) Johnmclane2 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that he meets WP:ENT due to several main roles on several TV shows, as follows:
Catfish on MTV
Dating #NoFilter on E! and VH1
Phone Swap on FOX
Women of Wrestling, Several episodes on AXS TV
Magic For Humans on Netflix
Face the Truth on NBC
Justice for All with Judge Cristina Perez on Court TV
Investigating Free Money on FOX

Thanks. Johnmclane2 (talk) 18:16, 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]

i have made all the changes and have added new primary , secondary resources , inline citations. besides the article subject is a notable person who has won many awards for her contribution to the film industry.

SourceRight (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SourceRight For further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. If you actually have new information that was not in the draft when it was reviewed, you must appeal to the last reviewer directly. Your username seems like it is that of a company; if so, you must rename your account immediately to have a more individualistic username; you may request a rename at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Please also read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thankuu SourceRight (talk) 15:57, 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]
You are free to resubmit the draft; you must click "resubmit" at the bottom of the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate advice on any further reviews required before the submission can be accepted. Claire Leaf (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I consolidated the two sections you created and changed your url to a standard internal link. Please edit this existing section for additional comment instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:02, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Ziaurrehman76


Ziaurrehman76 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaurrehman76 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Please also review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:36, 9 March 2022 review of submission by Zaher Ibrahim Alzahrani


Zaher Ibrahim Alzahrani (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't cite Wikipedia or crypto exchanges, and Twitter and the subject's own website are worthless for notability as Wikipedia defines it. This draft falls into the cryptocurrency/blockchain/NFT topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day

Thank you for allowing me to try amending my article, I have tried my best and added external links and citations. 

 please assist as this is very critical to the purpose of the group that took allot of efforts to build.

Zaher Ibrahim Alzahrani (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said above, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and all of your sources are completely useless from a WP:Notability standpoint. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 10

01:15:43, 10 March 2022 review of draft by GK1975


Please help me to improve my draft article, I like understand that what is missing as it already has a couple of secondary references with coverage about the article. Please suggest as per your best knowledge. GK1975 (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is crammed with buzzwords, and all the sources are of unknown provenance. OP has since been blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: FYI, this has been submitted by at least four accounts and one IP under at least two different draft titles (Draft:PERICENT, Draft:Pericent), four of which were here: GK1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the apparent sockmaster Pericentjaipur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Dravis williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the 7th. From the archive I also found Sanskriti88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.160.153.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:37:53, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Zarwara


Zarwara (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zarwara: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Most of the sources are of unknown provenance, and the two that aren't are a (walled) interview (connexion to subject) and a Google search (too sparse). None of the proffered external links are any good as sources, either. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:15:49, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Loljack1

My article about the band, Tinman Jones was denied and I was asked to come here for the reason why. Loljack1 (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loljack1 The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. You offer only the band website as a source, that is not acceptable as it is a primary source. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(not based on materials put out by the band like interviews, press releases, announcements) to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please read Your First Article. If there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss the band, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Not every band does. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Loljack1 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:08:51, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Meiwuzhang

Hi, this is the editor Meiwuzhang and I would like to ask why is my draft declined for the article 'Open: A Boy's Wayang Adventure'. This is my second article I have created. I joined a few months ago. Could you tell me what I am missing or how can I improve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiwuzhang (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:57, 10 March 2022 review of draft by Rillington


Rillington (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that yet again my article about West Wolds Radio has been rejected and no matter what I do it continues to be rejected.

First i was told that my references were not acceptable so i find additional independent references, this time from articles about the station in the local printed media. However I am still being told that the references do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Given that my references are about the subject and published in reliable independent sources I do not understand why they are deemed unacceptable.

I also do not understand why talking about the opening and closure of the station makes it not notable. Writing about the history of the station is surely an important part of any article? Plus most other articles about radio stations do not go into detail about programming but these articles aren't coming up against this level of opposition.

Please can I receive genuine help with this article and not have it rejected on what seems to be opinion, and for ever more petty and spurious reasons, rather than a breach of rules as frankly I am starting to feel that an example is being made out of me and this article given that no matter what I do it keeps getting rejected. Rillington (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rillington I would correct you in that your draft was only declined, not rejected. Rejection would mean it could not be resubmitted. The problem with your sources is not the sources themselves, but their content. They only discuss routine business activities, which does not establish that the radio station meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is looking for significant coverage in independent reliable sources; coverage that goes beyond merely documenting the existence of the topic or its routine activities. What makes this radio station important?(rhetorical question) Mere existence is not enough. If it had a notable impact on its community, then the draft should primarily summarize and cite sources that discuss that community impact(did it influence government policies? Cause more businesses to open in town? things like that). If no independent reliable sources discuss that impact, the station would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. If you just want to document the existence of the station and tell the world about it, you should use social media, your own website, or other forum with less stringent requirements.
Please read other stuff exists. The existence of or content of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Each is considered on their own merits. It is probably true that other articles on radio stations have inappropriate content or are entirely inappropriate. This is a volunteer effort with people doing what they can, when they can, and as such it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out in managing the over six million articles there are, feel free to identify other articles that do not meet guidelines for possible action. We could use the help, and it would be appreciated.
You are not being singled out here. There are numerous draft submissions every day from thousands of people, and thousands of drafts awaiting review, many of which will be treated the same. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:33, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Liptapp

Can you help me solve the issue about publishing my article it says it appears to read more like an advertisement. But it is not an advertisement. Liptapp (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely an advertisement! “The mattresses are sold with a 101-night sleep trial, lifetime warranty, and mattress financing options.”

“The Puffy Lux Hybrid Mattress has six layers, including a patented stain-resistant cloud cover and contour-adapt coil technology.” “The original Puffy Mattress has five layers of memory foam, including the Cooling Cloud Foam.” “All products are sold online.” etc etc This is all just advertising and has no place on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:56, 10 March 2022 review of submission by Macquigg

I got a message: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." with no further explanation. I can only guess that the sources were not acceptable, because they are documents published by the company producing the reactor. This will be true for all the articles on different reactors I would like to submit. There is no other reliable source of information on these reactors. Can we make these articles less about a specific design? I don't think so. To provide definitive answers to questions raised by the anti-nuclear community, we really need to see the details of each design. Then if there is still controversy, the issue can be settled with a quick point-counterpoint on the discussion page. A good example is the question about vulnerability of MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) to diversion of nuclear material. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stated that ALL MSRs are vulnerable, due to on-site fuel processing. See the Talk page on this article for the response from the designer of this reactor. Can we get someone from the Engineering group to weigh in on this? David MacQuigg 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Macquigg:, thanks for the question. The comment left by Nirmaljoshi is that the sources need to be WP:I. In order to show notability, the sources must be independent. Using a self-published source to explain or show certain items within the draft is acceptable (depending), but the independent sources are needed to show why the topic qualifies for a Wikipedia page. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:27, 10 March 2022 review of submission by SourceRight

i made the edits as i was advised to. but im really confused about the notability factor as the subject is quite notable and has been covered widely in al the sources required by wikipedia primary , secondary etc. i had attached new citations and references. ill leave it at it.--SourceRight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC) SourceRight (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1076352397"