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 61.3.128.51 (talk) at 09:56, 12 April 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
June 2025
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


April 6

03:42:44, 6 April 2022 review of draft by VistaXL


I've just had an article rejected and would like some help correcting it.

VistaXL (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VistaXL (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, it was declined because we already have an article on Recreational vehicle. Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:50, 6 April 2022 review of submission by DarylStories YT

DarylStories YT (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above, your draft was rejected the topic (namely you) is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 12:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tootara

My [[1]] was declined with the below statement.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please let me know how to improve it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARA Software Development (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: User indeffed after posting and draft tagged for CSD by another user Justiyaya 12:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:25:14, 6 April 2022 review of submission by PriyadharshiniRajkumar

This is Actress Priyadharshini Rajkumar A Notable person in Film Industry who worked with many stars as supporting artist in popular movies, and have given the references as the same reference PriyadharshiniRajkumar (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, notability cannot be inherited by working with "stars". Theroadislong (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:38:32, 6 April 2022 review of draft by Швец Виталий


Швец Виталий (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What looks like advertisement in draft?
This draft is translated page from russian Wikipedia and i thought it should be auto confirmed. Швец Виталий (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Translations are not automatically accepted. Each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necssarily acceptable on another. The draft only tells about this man and what he has done. English Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabur Ali

SABUR ALI is an Indian poet,born and brought up in a village named Balikuri , Barpeta district of Assam in India He has already published so many of his poems as a co-author.He is a co-author of 20 books. He has already deserved so many national and international accolades for his poems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SABUR ALI Author (talk • contribs) 17:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my article declined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SABUR ALI Author (talk • contribs) 17:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SABUR ALI Author You appear to be editing about yourself. This is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, but a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. Your draft was deleted as promotional because it did little more than state that you exist.
If you are not writing about yourself, please change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:13:17, 6 April 2022 review of draft by Mtnocean


Mtnocean (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor left revision suggestions on the page "Draft:Form4." I made those revisions and then notified that editor of those changes. Then another editor declined the page (they said because it read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry). I based the page on other approved pages in the same field (architecture firms). What, specifically, should be revised next to make it more appropriate for inclusion? Thank you.

23:33:07, 6 April 2022 review of draft by 2601:18E:8201:7B50:A4D9:1D2A:997:6433

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 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 appeared to be written full of promotional quotes rather than suggested notability standards).

In any case, it is useless to try to assess the response and I left this article behind. He is, of course, 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 Wikipedia editor had clearly stated Wikipedia standards of notability were not the problem. What was the conflict? 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. Many sources are no longer available online or never were. 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 Gann article, etc. will suffice for a legacy as shown online at this moment and the simple Wikipedia article can come when editors are ready to cite better reasons for now.

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. 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, all 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 expense and research 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 write for traditional media and academic journals. What can I say? I will leave the draft to someone who better understands what is up.

2601:18E:8201:7B50:A4D9:1D2A:997:6433 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP Editor - First of all, I'm sorry to hear that you had a poor experience with your draft. From what I can tell, nobody has explicitly shown you the relevant notability guidelines, which in this case are WP:NCOMPOSER and WP:NPROF. To demonstrate notability, the subject must reach one or both of these standards (or the general notability guideline). To briefly address your concern about other articles' existence, I will point you to WP:OSE and state that you may nominate that article at WP:AFD if you feel the subject is not notable. I also want to point out that sources are not required to be available online, so non-internet sources are perfectly fine. Best of luck to you with your draft, feel free to contact me on [talk page] if you have any further questions. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 03:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 7

06:39:12, 7 April 2022 review of submission by Amnakaleem18

Amnakaleem18 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand why my article is keep getting rejected as I have provided everything, every citation. There is no specific reason of rejecting. If there is any problem please mention it as a line number.

It has not been rejected, it was declined for reading like an advert, for instance "Future World School has been awarded with numerous prestigious awards based on its outstanding contribution and excellence. The awards are a true reflection of the academic excellence and all round development of learners." is unsourced and totally inappropriate marketing, in fact none of the "awards" are sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 06:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:22, 7 April 2022 review of submission by ParisBlue

Editor said the page read too much like an advertisement and was not neutral. I don't understand what reads like an advertisement as this simply tells the facts. The sources used are legitimate (Inside Self-Storage, an industry publication, as well as the California Business Journal and others). ParisBlue (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content like " Storelocal uses the combined strength of its 1,300 member facilities to offer a variety of services to members, including customer acquisition, financial assistance, marketing support, and technology" certainly looks like blatant advertising to me. Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:05:43, 7 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Toocheck22

Hello, everyone! Thanks for reviewing my page! I see you've declined it because it's been flagged as a personal web page and an autobiography. That's a totally reasonable guess given my username! In fact, I am not Nikolas but rather his older sister. I am aware that this is a conflict of interest and that a personal connection to the subject warrants additional review, which, in the name of objectivity, I completely welcome! However, I wanted to ask if the personal page and autobiography issues are the only reasons the page has been declined. I believe Nikolas's accomplishments are notable enough to warrant a page, just like other young athletes such as Winter Vinecki and Jordan Romero have. My list of sources supports the media's view of his notability as well. Because of this media coverage and because he does have an actual personal website, I can assure you that this page is not intended to be used as publicity. Please let me know what you think, as I'd really like to have this page published. Thank you!—Toocheck22

Toocheck22 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:11, 7 April 2022 review of draft by Mariaarriega

Requesting deletion of Draft:Adrian_Quesada as there is already a live page at Adrian Quesada. Mariaarriega (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariaarriega (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Tagged @Mariaarriega, you can use WP:G7 next time for similar cases. Justiyaya 18:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops forgot to check edit history, CSD denied and page redirected. Justiyaya 19:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:52, 7 April 2022 review of submission by Sarahiscool2024

why was my article declined? Sarahiscool2024 (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarahiscool2024 The reviewer left the reason on your draft. We already have an article about dogs, Dog. You wrote a nice essay, but that is not a referenced encyclopedia article. Writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. If you have well referenced content to add to the dog article, please propose it at Talk:Dog. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


April 8

01:24:35, 8 April 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:8F56

VegNews, the world’s largest plant-based media brand, has just announced KALE MY NAME as the 2022 Veggie AwardTM Winner for BEST VEGAN CASUAL RESTAURANT. In the 22nd annual Veggie AwardsTM, more than 2 million votes were cast in 57 categories ranging from Best Vegan Cheese, Ice Cream, and Meat to Favorite Vegan Celebrity, Athlete, and Social Media Star. The annual Veggie AwardsTM is the largest survey of vegan products, people, and places on the planet. “Kale My Name” is a leader in the plant-based industry and continues to develop stellar vegan meals. We are pleased to honor your accomplishments with a 2022 Veggie AwardTM,” says VegNews Publisher Colleen Holland. Kale My Name is a globally inspired 100% Plant Based restaurant.

2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:8F56 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide more sources than that, the same issues - i.e. the overwhelming majority of the sourcing being Kale My Name being used as a prop in a source that's hardly about Kale My Name - are in play. In fact, the sourcing for the draft at present is completely unchanged from January, and you've done jack to correct it. See also the March 2022 and January 2022 threads. As none of the edits since January have actually done anything to improve the sourcing, I am going to start reverting off requests for this article as disruptive if it's clear the sourcing hasn't been touched since the last thread. Stop trying to use Wikipedia to promote this company. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:44:29, 8 April 2022 review of draft by 142.114.185.52

I am new to Wikipedia and I don't know much about editing drafts. How much kilobytes should there be for main space? 142.114.185.52 (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gigabytes? We chop down articles that are above 50 or so kilobytes in length; that's smaller by a couple orders of magnitude. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad 142.114.185.52 (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:32:05, 8 April 2022 review of draft by TrueStay


Hi, I was wondering if I could get any pointers on why this looks like promotional content? Besides the companies stated value, all sources are external to the company. Should I try to find an external source for the company value? To confirm I am not affiliated with this company in any way, all information has been put together from articles, which is how I assumed other pages are created (though I did see many pages that site information from the company specifically - is this not accurate and if so how do I flag those pages to Wikipedia)? Thanks

TrueStay (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TrueStay: This is a bulleted list, not prose. Even disregarding that, routine business news isn't useful for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:56:09, 8 April 2022 review of submission by PriyadharshiniRajkumar

this is the autobiography of me Priyadarshini Rajkumar well-known actress in Tamil film industry for the past two decades. I have provided self-sufficient external resources. why it is not getting approved and if it's getting rejected help me out where is the exact issue is?

PriyadharshiniRajkumar (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PriyadharshiniRajkumar: We have little tolerance for autobiographies due to the inherent conflict of interest when writing about oneself. This draft has a frankly obscene amount of unreferenced biographical claims which in and of themselves are reason to decline a draft; other than that, mu. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:13:48, 8 April 2022 review of submission by 202.149.222.58

Request to review again and give opportunity to list our company information on Wiki page, In content we have only added company details, We are not advertising. 202.149.222.58 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction without a difference. We're not a listing; we're an encyclopaedia project. And to that point, this draft cites absolutely zero sources, making it dead on arrival. You need to provide multiple in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles written by identifiable authors in outlets with editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, retractions, and corrections in order for an article to even be considered. You, personally, are also obligated to register an account and formally disclose your relationship with the company. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:24:54, 8 April 2022 review of draft by DavidJRohde


I created the article: Draft:Emma Reilly and submitted an early version. I received feedback to say she was not notable. I added further references to show she was notable, but received a further comment that she is best known for one event. This is debatable - in french she has a wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Reilly but I see it as valid. It was suggested that I then create a page on her and the event, which I did which is here: Draft:Allegation of UN sharing names of dissidents with the Chinese Communist Party this page has now been rejected because it is a duplicate. What is the best path to withdrawl the old article on Emma Reilly and have the new article considered for inclusion in Wikipedia? Thank you!

DavidJRohde (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may simply edit your original draft; do not worry about its title, if accepted it will be placed at the correct title. You can request that your second draft be deleted by placing {{db-g7}} on the draft(without the nowiki tags I have placed to suppress that function here). 331dot (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:51:43, 8 April 2022 review of draft by Edwardgao123


Excuse me, is there an editor to help me review my newly created draft? Many thanks:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CCGrass


Edwardgao123 (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardgao123 You must actually submit your draft for review by clicking the "submit your draft for review" button located in the box at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was my draft submitted for review ? Can`t se any confirmation

Hey

can someone please help me to improve and publish the draft?

This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kramatorsk_train_station_attack

Thank you

I have reviewed it. If you are trying to be first wuth the news that is not a Wiki9pedia function. Wikipedia is, typically, last with news bevcuase it is a tertiary source, reporting what is said in reliable secondary sources 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:47, 8 April 2022 review of draft by 209.6.11.83

Reviewers are merely repeating the initial critique of my article. I have made many changes to ensure an encyclopedic style and deleted any text that sounds like an opinion. The topic is an important domain and awaits coverage. My request is to have a fresh review - not one resorting to repetition of a prior review. When comparing my entry to others, it seems to qualify as well-written, adequately referenced, and encyclopedic. I ask respectfully for your help.

209.6.11.83 (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the previous three declines, your draft reads like an essay. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:26, 8 April 2022 review of draft by Marta.866

I don't understand what is the problem with the article. It seems copied, but from where? This is a little treated subject on which I have written other articles myself, but if it is a writing issue, it can be corrected (English is not my native language, I do not know if there are other ways of expressing the text). Can you tell me more specifically what the problem is, or directly correct it or give me guidelines to do it myself?


Marta.866 (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marta.866, I believe that the reviewer thought that it was copied due to the lead section being unclear and containing some grammatical errors. Perhaps Compassionate727 (who appears to be the only active editor on Wikipedia:Translators available#Spanish-to-English) can help? The draft appears to be a translated version of an es-wiki article. Justiyaya 15:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a copyright perspective, copying (including translating) between Wikipedias is permitted, but you must note that have you done so in the edit summary; somebody will need to make a dummy edit and do so (I won’t do it myself right now because I’m editing from my phone, which is a pain). The grammar can be cleaned up by anyone fluent in English, so I wouldn’t worry about that too much. However, my experience is that most Spanish Wikipedia articles, including this one, are unsuitable for simple translations because they are almost entirely unsourced. Compare one of my recent projects, Juan Pablo Cardenas (with an accent on the first A of Cardenas, which I can’t type right now) with its Spanish Wikipedia counterpart; the entire article needed to be rewritten to satisfy WP:V. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Compassionate727 Thank you so much! Justiyaya 04:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:19, 8 April 2022 review of submission by Jacob.p.servant

I have updated the references as requested. Jacob.p.servant (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:10:37, 8 April 2022 review of submission by LaurenTimeToRefresh

I'd like to know how to undergo 'cleanup' to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, as my draft currently has a COI issue. If I could be pointed in the right direction for this process that'd be great, thank you! Also, just a note that I understand the other reasons why my article was rejected and I'll work on those too before resubmitting.

Many thanks!

LaurenTimeToRefresh (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LaurenTimetoRefresh, first is read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the proper declarations. Once that's done, follow the advice given by previous reviewers and focus on providing information from independent secondary reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaurenTimeToRefresh thank you for coming to the AFC help desk, there seems to be an lot of of unreliable sources used in the article. All contentious material about a living person must be have an inline citation that contains a reliable source supporting it. Please review our WP:COI guidelines and if you do have a COI with the subject, please disclose it. If this is unclear, feel free to reply to this message asking for clarification. Justiyaya 15:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:18, 8 April 2022 review of draft by 98.186.54.177

I'm trying to redirect an article 2026 NFL season but i need some help redirecting the article 98.186.54.177 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC) 98.186.54.177 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done see 2026 NFL season, please go to WP:Requested redirects next time, thanks! Justiyaya 17:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:39:35, 8 April 2022 review of submission by Kathpencill

Kathpencill (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft name : Hirdaramani Bangladesh i am not clear why its declined to publish. can you pls explain more specifically to understand.

Just blatant advertising with zero independent sources, will be rejected if re-submitted without substantial improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:30:08, 8 April 2022 review of draft by Peaceonearth2022

Need help getting article approved Peaceonearth2022 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review, what specific help do you need? 331dot (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:44:19, 8 April 2022 review of submission by Devid 2

Devid 2 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Why my unique content article is declined

20:46:44, 8 April 2022 review of draft by Aswinarulvel

I have created an article called Aswin's Good Apps. It has been declined due to bad refrences. Acctually, it is a good reference because it is the page. Plus those pages contains content that I used in my writing. But, they say it is not a reliable source. It is basically the webpages I am talking about. You could even search it in google. I am telling the description of them which is provided in the website I given them. Aswinarulvel (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aswinarulvel: We have zero interest in what a company says, or pays people to say, about themselves on or off-Wikipedia. We're looking for multiple in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles about the company written by identifiable authors in outlets with editorial oversight responsible for fact-checking, disclosure, retractions, and corrections; this automatically precludes citing the subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:16, 8 April 2022 review of draft by Derrick.blanton

I am attempting to add tags to my submission but every time I attempt to add them it says " An error occurred (unexpected-result) Please try again." Derrick.blanton (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

02:02:39, 9 April 2022 review of submission by 71.162.145.162

Hello, I am a writer and noticed an opportunity to write an article about the popular American YouTuber, Arkensik. Arkensik is known as the leading news source for information regarding the account merging feature and other news for the video game "Fortnite." He has almost 5 million total views and almost 30,000 followers and subscribers across all of his social media. I do believe this YouTuber is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia as he has worked on many cases regarding striking against the YouTube copyright system back in 2019 and teaming up with other popular YouTubers to call out the flawed system, to devoting some fundraising work to many fundraisers across the internet. Thank you for your proper regard of this matter and let me know if you have any other suggestions to get this article published. 71.162.145.162 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are an interview, an article he wrote, and a completely irrelevant website. And with no in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles about him written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts, we can't have an article on both notability and biographical grounds. 5 million total views and 30K followers isn't very impressive in an age where both can be purchased in bulk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:57:00, 9 April 2022 review of submission by K baishya

Hello, The aforesaid draft has been moved to draft from main space three months back. All the necessary modifications have been done according to the recommendations. Kindly let me know if you have any other suggestions to get this article published.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K baishya (talk • contribs)

12:04:26, 9 April 2022 review of submission by Worldsite9937

Hello, Please help me to review this draft of a living person to get it into article. According to the reviewer there's notability problem, But Dina Amer's articles has references from Arab News, Screen International, Vice Media, and more. She also won awards from International Federation of Film Critics and Red Sea International Film Festival.

So I request you guys to please check on the page and let know if it's good to go for main space. Thank You Worldsite9937 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldsite9937 as the submission message states, there are over 2,800 draft waiting to be reviewed and may take up to 4 months. Generally, they are reviewed in a month or so, though. Please be patient. S0091 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:16:28, 9 April 2022 review of submission by Krushnarjun

Krushnarjun (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want a re-review. I had made a mistake in posting the earlier statement in the sandbox````

Krushnarjun If you would like the page itself deleted, you're welcome to request a U1 CSD. If you would like to retain the page but remove the AfC draft content, blank the page and put whatever you'd like there. :) AviationFreak💬 19:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:55, 9 April 2022 review of draft by 98.186.54.177

can you please help me redirect the 2025 NFL Draft article please help me redirect it so it would be nice if you would make it a redirect please. 98.186.54.177 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

98.186.54.177 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As requested above, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, thank you. Justiyaya 18:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:47, 9 April 2022 review of submission by 98.186.54.177

98.186.54.177 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned again above, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. Happy editing! Bsoyka (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start reverting requests to make this redirect off. Listen to what you've been told, please. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:12:25, 9 April 2022 review of submission by Coolguy1765

Coolguy1765 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coolguy1765 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand on my rejection reasoning now that this has been brought here... We're looking at a YouTube channel with 23 subscribers. Subscriber/follower count on any platform is no indication of notability, but it can certainly give a hint. There are absolutely no reliable sources even mentioning this channel. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The only references on the draft itself are from YouTube and Facebook. Aside from that, this draft appears to be written (likely by the YouTuber themself) solely to advertise an upcoming series on the channel, so it is not encyclopedic. I apologize for the bluntness here, but, as of now, there is simply no way we could have an article on this subject. Bsoyka (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks for leting me know. Coolguy1765 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft about a friend of mine, and he has over a 100 subscribes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elfboy Coolguy1765 (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the number of subscribers for any topic. It is irrelevant. A "YouTuber" can have 5 subscribers and merit an article, and have 5 million and not merit one. What matters is the coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Coolguy1765 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft has been tagged for G11 as the draft appears promotional. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 10

Request on 06:22:01, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahbub Alam Bhuiyan

Mahbub Alam Bhuiyan You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:17, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Emmanuelle Dilshad

Emmanuelle Dilshad (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Draft deleted and its history suppressed. Also, see our guideline on autobiographies. Bsoyka (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:45, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Emmanuelle Dilshad

Emmanuelle Dilshad (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be "very kind, very sensible and have great moral character" but I'm afraid that like most of us you are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not working

I try to submit my article, but I get this error An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'length')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. Please help Green Echidna (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Faker.js
@Green Echidna: Wikipedia is not a how-to manual; what you've written isn't acceptable in its current state. Its sources are a YouTube video from an unverified channel (unknown provenance), a blog post from someone who could feasibly be called a subject-matter expert, and a tutorial (routine coverage); of those only the blog post could be considered an acceptable source and even then that is debatable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské CourianoI didn't make a how to manual. I just gave a snippet of the code. On programing languages site they also give snippets of code. The youtube video is a reuploaded video from a google software engineer with over 1 million subscribers. So he knows quite a bit about software. What I written was a started piece that if approved would allow others to edit and make it better. That isn't the final product, I just wanted to started a page. This page is about a very popular service and is necessary to complete wikipedia. Green Echidna (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Echidna: Then why is the article written in the second-person ("you")? That's not "providing code snippets", that's explaining how to use it. Also, your argument about the YT video is an ironclad argument against using it, as you're basically admitting it's contributory copyright infringement, which we NEVER link to, let alone cite. In the event there is a question as to the veracity or provenance of the source, we do not use that source AT ALL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link, no longer copyright infringement. Saying that is in second person is not painting the full picture. I use you only in "What can It do" section which is fine. If I was writing about apples and I said "You can eat apples". Would that be writing a how-to manual? No of course not. It would just be explaining the purpose of the apple. Just replace the apple with what I am writing about and it is the exact same. Green Echidna (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was writing about apples and I said "You can eat apples".

That wouldn't be encyclopedic. You could say something like "Humans can eat apples.", but you should never talk to the reader. Bsoyka (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:59, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaza613


I disagree with the reason given for rejecting the submission, namely that the topic is not sufficiently notable. Proof of Humanity was the main focus (not just a side mention) of an article published in TIME magazine (and it was mentioned in a second TIME article), which is surely a reliable independent secondary source. And it was one of the main topics discussed by Vitalik Buterin (inventor of Ethereum) in a high-profile recorded public talk. I added those sources as citations. An internet search will reveal many other secondary sources that refer to Proof of Humanity (admittedly most other sources may not be as reputable, but they're still independent). Furthermore, I have only cited English-language sources, but (as the project is largely based in Argentina) there are also Spanish-language sources that are independent secondary sources. I myself have no affiliation with Proof of Humanity, I only discovered it about two weeks ago. Can somebody please review this submission again, in light of the evidence suggesting that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Jaza613 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaza613: The reviewer commented that the TIME article was a good source, but the rest of it was not, and given that conflict-of-interest sourcing is a massive issue in the topic-area (and the big reason it's under general sanctions), we can't have not-reputable-but-independent sources. I will not comment further as this is, as I mentioned before, covered by a sanctions regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the reviewer inline in the submission, saying:
Thanks for mentioning Buterin's 2022 book "Proof of Stake", I wasn't aware of it. The book hasn't been published yet, so we don't know exactly what its content will be. But according to https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/714151/proof-of-stake-by-vitalik-buterin/ , it will include the essay "Crypto Cities", which was originally published on Buterin's blog at https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/10/31/cities.html , and which mentions Proof of Humanity.
And:
Proof of Humanity is mentioned in the 2020 academic paper "Sybil-Resilient Coin Minting" , details and full text at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15536 . The paper is in arXiv's CoRR, which isn't peer-reviewed, but is moderated (and the authors of the paper in question have published other work to peer-reviewed journals, such as IEEE/ACM).
So, there you go, two more reliable independent sources.
Once again, I ask that you review this submission again, in light of the evidence suggesting that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jaza613 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also replied inline, saying:
To clarify, I dug a little deeper, and the mention of Proof of Humanity wasn't in the original 2020 version of the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15536 , the mention of Proof of Humanity was added to the paper in Feb 2022. Jaza613 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More of my inline replies:
The academic paper that describes Proof of Humanity in greatest detail, is the "Kleros Long Paper" at https://kleros.io/static/yellowpaper_en-8ac96b06f39f19a6a28106cf624e3342.pdf . It's only self-published (and it hasn't been submitted anywhere for peer review, as far as I'm aware), and it's obviously not an independent source, but it has been cited by other independent academic papers, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06597v1 (submitted for CoRR moderation), and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3975500 (published in Journal of Law, Technology and Policy).
And:
The academic paper "Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols" https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05300 also describes Proof of Humanity in reasonable detail. One of the authors is Santiago Siri, so it's obviously not an independent source. But it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Blockchain.
And:
The academic paper "The Social Smart Contract" https://basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Miller_Sandra_Democracy_Earth_Foundation_Paper_fort_17th_BIEN_The_Social_Smart_Contract.pd_.pdf predates the Proof of Humanity project, but its detailed description of the mechanics of "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2) and "Universal Basic Income" (section 3.3) were the original blueprint that led to Proof of Humanity several years later. The author is listed as the "Democracy Earth Foundation" (and the first person listed on the "Team" is Santiago Siri), so it's obviously not an independent source. But it was presented at the peer-reviewed BIEN Congress.
And:
The TED Talk "How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era" https://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democracy_for_the_internet_era also predates the Proof of Humanity project, but it presents the broad socio-political ideas behind Proof of Humanity, and it describes in detail the direct democracy / liquid democracy experiment (in Buenos Aires, Argentina, about 10 years ago) that directly led to the founding of Democracy Earth, which in turn directly led to Proof of Humanity. The speaker is Pia Mancini, the partner of Santiago Siri, so it's obviously not an independent source. But it doesn't get much more mainstream than a TED Talk. Jaza613 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another inline reply from me:
Yes, I know that the academic paper "The Social Smart Contract" doesn't mention the term "Proof of Humanity". That's because the paper predates the coining of the term. That paper instead uses the term "Proof of Identity". The paper also makes far more mention of Bitcoin than it does of Ethereum (which was brand-new at the time), whereas Proof of Humanity today is built entirely upon the latter. And the paper describes how Roma Siri (daughter of Santiago and Pia) became the first person in world history to receive a "blockchain valid birth certificate", and it was done using Bitcoin rather than Ethereum. However, you can't discard a source simply because "it fails the CTRL+F test" (nor because implementation details have evolved over time). If you actually read the content of "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2) and "Universal Basic Income" (section 3.3), it's clear that what it's describing (in exhaustive detail) is the "first design draft" of what would later become Proof of Humanity. The paper "Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols" (which passes the "CTRL+F test") cites "The Social Smart Contract", thus providing proof of the evolutionary link between the paper "The Social Smart Contract" and "Proof of Humanity". And I personally first came across "The Social Smart Contract" (at https://github.com/DemocracyEarth/paper where it's published as a "living roadmap"), and that in turn led me to discover Proof of Humanity. So don't tell me that that paper has nothing to do with Proof of Humanity, it's the project's genesis! Jaza613 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More inline replies that I just added:
The relevant quote from the academic paper, in full, is: "On the other direction, exemplifying emerging communities within the digital realm, the Democracy Earth Foundation is a non governmental initiative towards e-Democracy. It is related to Proof of Humanity, which is quite similar to our approach. They also use a web of trust for identification, though it seems for now that a single endorser is enough for one to be accepted. They use Kleros, a distributed online dispute resolution protocol, to resolve identity disputes. Interestingly, in some cases, when an identity is found to be 'Duplicate' or 'Does not exist', they remove from the registry all the identities that vouched for it. This is more harsh than the approach presented here, that only penalizes these neighbours. Proof of Humanity also delivers universal basic income to registered users." That's more than a mere mention if you ask me.
And:
I should also point out that in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHm7H4zOim8 which I cited, Vitalik Buterin is briefly introduced by Santiago Siri, but he is then interviewed by Olivia Goldschmidt, who is a journalist with La Nación. You can see her articles at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/autor/olivia-goldschmidt-8226/ . La Nación is considered the leading traditional newspaper in Argentina, and has the second-highest readership in the country. Buterin's talk was also covered here https://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/vitalik-buterin-argentina-segui-vivo-charla-creador-ethereum-guru-criptomonedas_0_h4ucApriz.html by Clarín, the leading liberal newspaper in Argentina, with the number-one highest readership in the country.
And:
There are several other articles describing Proof of Humanity in reasonable detail, from those mainstream Argentine newspapers, for example: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/santiago-siri-que-haya-un-discurso-mas-amigable-con-el-mercado-en-las-nuevas-generaciones-me-da-un-nid28112021/ , https://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/metaverso-web3-nft-dao-significan-palabras-tech-surgieron-2021-definiran-futuro_0_Oo41ZDHM7.html , https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/negocios/criptomonedas-el-proyecto-de-un-argentino-que-capto-el-interes-de-los-grandes-jugadores-del-mercado-nid26102021/ . Jaza613 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:42, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Yoshio Daggett Official

Hello! I wanted to contact you regarding the kind rejection I received. I have read that writing an autobiography is not how it is normally done here on Wikipedia, but I was wondering, if I can't do it, who can? As I understand it, the reason many autobiographies are deleted because of bias, however I do not believe I showed any bias in this page, and feel it remained purely informational. I read that one other reason may be lack of external credibility, and have compiled a list of external sources regarding the authenticity of my career of being an author. The primary reason I wanted to submit this article is to obtain an image of professionalism in my work (whether that be if someone wants to know about me, or just googles my name). If you have any feedback on how I could make this happen, it would be extremely appreciated. Thank you for your time and patience, and have a wonderful day. Yoshio Daggett Official (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshio Daggett Official: "Obtain an image of professionalism"? That isn't something Wikipedia is ever going to be capable of doing by its very design. People, as a general rule, tend to be bad at seeing their own biases in what they write unless it's blatant; just because you can't see bias doesn't mean people with no connexion to you or your surrogates can't. As for sourcing, a Google search (string: "yoshio daggett") shows no in-depth, non-routine, independent sources written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, retracts, and corrects, so any discussion of an article about you is grossly premature - there's literally nothing for us to work with on the sourcing front, which means our notability and biographical policies are impossible to satisfy at this stage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. As all the article contained was my age (Redacted), and list of published books, I thought it had be unbiased but, as you said, I must have been blatant. I apologize, as I am still trying to navigate my way through this new territory. Thank you, and have a wonderful day. Yoshio Daggett Official (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly urge you to also read WP:Guidance for younger editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoshio Daggett Official: Wikipedia is not for merely documenting your career or existence. That's what social media is for, and you should use that to tell the world about yourself. I would suggest that you simply go on with your life and career and not worry about a Wikipedia article. There are good reasons to not want one. If you truly meet the notability criteria, an independent editor will take note of coverage of you and choose to write about you. Trying to force the issue as you are is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 11

05:56:36, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Arrecife

RE: Draft:Tapovan, Sri Chinmoy Peace Park I wish to modify the article so it is encyclopedic, and I have made some efforts in this direction. Please tell me what else I need to do so that it does not seem like an advertisement. Arrecife (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer, you must appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:12:03, 11 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MikeTimesONE

Hello. My draft was unfortunately rejected for being WP:TOOSOON, and the reviewer suggested to incorporate any additional information to Dr Disrespect. What do I do now? I've been working on this draft since February, and I am very frustrated. I don't want any of my work to go to waste. MikeTimesONE


MikeTimesONE 12:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:53, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Basilic25


Hi ! I just submitted a draft and realized that I made a mistake in the title of the page... The page should be called "Gallia Préhistoire" and not just "Gallia". I can't find how to change the title for a draft. Thanks for your help!

Basilic25 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basilic25 Renaming any page is accomplished with a page move, but Don't worry about it, other than to make a note on the draft talk page with the title you intend. If and when the draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:21, 11 April 2022 review of draft by DamesnetV


This entry has been rejected for not having enough citations, but I note that it has more than many of the biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. What is needed specifically over and above the ones I already have?

Many thanks

DamesnetV (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:52, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Euaanmill

Hello

I submitted a question about this previously, but the replies I received did not help me reach a conclusive answer so I'm posting again - hope that is OK.

My query is regarding notability, for which my article Draft:The_Portraits_(music_duo) has been rejected most recently.

In the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music), in the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", it states that:

"Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

It then subsequently lists a series of criteria, and states that the claim to notability must be "properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."

Of these criteria, the following are true of the subject of this draft Wikipedia article:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

I have backed up, through multiple revisions of the article over the period of more than a year, in line with [note 1] under the above criterion, the coverage with specific examples of independent, published articles referring to the music duo covered by this proposed Wikipedia article from reliable sources such as major, reputable UK newspapers and radio/televisual sources none of which are blacklisted in Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

These are the stated reasons for rejection under point 1 above, NONE of which are true in the case of this draft article: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."

And:

"2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

This has been shown, with reference to the UK's officially recognised national music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, as listed by Wikipedia, as published on 25 December 2020.

I sought advice on the above in a previous post, asking for pointers on what exactly your editors remain sceptical about regarding notability, as I am totally confident that the subject of this draft article does fulfil the criteria to merit such an entry.

The reply I received, rather than responding to my defence of the article in terms of its notability, seemed to suggest disbelief that I'm not personally benefitting financially from writing this article. This would seem to be a separate issue from notability, but let me state unequivocally that I am not being paid to write the article in money or kind and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

I am therefore left rather confused as to the reasons for rejection, which seem no longer to be related to the officially stated reason for rejection, i.e. the notability criteria, but instead to my own character as a contributor.

Could I respectfully request further clarification in light of my above points?

Many thanks in advance.

Euaanmill


Euaanmill (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euanmill, Notability is not inherited. Your sources can make an argument for the song being notable, though I believe other reviewers have highlighted that many/all are interviews which do not establish notability(I have not reviewed the individual sources, only the titles). For the subjects themselves to be notable, you should find WP:THREE independent sources that discuss them in depth and establish notability. If you believe three sources already meet this (or have 3 additional), then you should share them with the reviewer who rejected so they can re-consider.Slywriter (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do believe the sources already submitted do meet this, so I shall attempt to resubmit to the reviewer. Best wishes. Euaanmill (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:45, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Abhijeete18


Abhijeete18 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the image

The article is not yet written in English. This is about the image taken from the Persian version in wiki_farsi. I just wanted to know if the picture according to the explanation (old picture) can be in my sandbox or not? Arbabi second (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it does or not is academic. Images don't help drafts what-so-ever. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:19, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Krishnadahal12


Krishna Dahal (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about specific reason why this article has not been accepted yet. There are at least reference from four independent sources. Please look into it again. Thanks.

Not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:27, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Irishkiwi007

You state that This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, this movie has now won a category at an international film festival. What more do you need? Also, how is it contrary? Thanks

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Irishkiwi007: Award ≠ notability. Notability is the extent to which a subject has been discussed in independent reliable sources; see the general notability guideline for more information. Bsoyka (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:33, 11 April 2022 review of submission by ARodgersEditor

Hello, I have removed promotional "fluff" from the article, and I also added independent sources under a new Reference heading. I believe the citations are all done correctly and the sources are sufficient to prove the notability of the subject. I would appreciate if you could please review my article again. Thank you. ARodgersEditor (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @S0091. Bsoyka (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:42, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Jairocugliari

Dear editor, I am asking for advice since precedent editions were considered insufficient to meet wikipedia standards. Specifically, I would like to check if the information box contains relevant information, if the sources are alright, and finally I need help to update the logo file.

Best, JC Jairocugliari (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Regarding images, fair use images (like logos) cannot be in drafts. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

09:18:21, 12 April 2022 review of submission by HasanMougharbel444

Please could anyone explain to me why my article is decline?

HasanMougharbel444 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:16, 12 April 2022 review of submission by 61.3.128.51

61.3.128.51 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1082286813"