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 Andrea.ca (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 2 May 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


April 26

12:50:48, 26 April 2022 review of submission by 日本語男１２３

My draft was recently declined. They said it was because another article of it already exists. The article they are referring to is talking about both of the games, Pokemon Diamond and Pokemon Pearl. I am just talking and focusing on Pearl. Please accept my article. 日本語男１２３ (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@日本語男１２３:, your draft offers no expansion or reliable sourcing so there is no need for it to be approved or even looked at. Feel free to add any missing information to the main article with proper sourcing McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:44, 26 April 2022 review of draft by John1295


John1295 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC) Dear staff, Thank you for all you do. I am trying to publish this document what additional information/ evidence do you need to approve this article for johnson Mbabazi and how can you help for this to be published.? Johnson Mbabazi is a lecturer at Teesside University and also British citizen. what secondary reference is needed to for proof to be accepted. Thank you Kind regards, JOHN1295[reply]

At least one in-depth, non-routine, independent source about the person written by an identifiable author and published in an outlet with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts per claim. Social media doesn't count, anything he wrote/said/produced doesn't count. Any claim that you cannot corroborate with a good source must be removed, full stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:27, 26 April 2022 review of submission by 95.149.88.216

Hello, what needs to be added in order for it to be more notable. The company’s NFT profile on two notable platforms being OpenSea and Rarible. I thought it would be sufficient, but very happy to hear why not Many thanks

95.149.88.216 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest finding a topic unrelated to blockchain to write about. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:53, 26 April 2022 review of submission by 69leiden69

I have worked on translating/updating the Dutch language page on architect/artist William Brand, who specializes on light art. Could you kindly check what in this case is missing? It was rejected. 69leiden69 (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@69leider69: The English-language Wikipedia has WP:Biographies of living persons, a policy which, to my knowledge, doesn't have any sort of equivalent in the other language-editions and which is mandatory to adhere to when writing about living people. Your sources need to be in-line, placed so as to support claims the article makes; any claim you do not have a good source for and can't/won't find one for must be removed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@69lieder69: I went in and did cleanup on the refs, some red links and finished translating into English. Not sure either way on whether it is good enough, but it is clean. :)Naraht (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:55, 26 April 2022 review of draft by TessbytheSea


TessbytheSea (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TessbytheSea I have taken a look at Draft:Russell Dahl (where the draft has been moved pending review) it looks to me more like a CV or resumé than an biography. You can solve much of that by sorting the information about his career into chronological order. It looks like most of it is currently in reverse chronological order. Try to put in dates as far as possible - when each project/job started and ended.
I also took a look at a few of the sources you cited and noticed that some don't even mention Dahl at all, thus they provide no useful information. Try to find sources that discuss him and his work.
You could also get subject-specific advice from WT:WikiProject Pharmacology. I hope this is helpful. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:35, 26 April 2022 review of draft by Melissaecuador


I am requesting help because my article Chicago Steak Company 2 was declined. I believe that it is written in a neutral tone/point of view and that it does not sound like an advertisement, but a informational piece. Could you provide me with some guidance on how to make it more neutral?

Melissaecuador (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melissaecuador On Wikipedia, there is no difference between informational and promotional. You don't have to be actively soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, and is not a place to merely tell about the topic. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. Significant coverage goes beyond the mere reporting of the activities of the business or what it does. Please read Your First Article. The article should be less about what the company does and more about what others completely unaffiliated with it say is important about it.
I get the sense that you have an association with this business. If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

08:09:14, 27 April 2022 review of draft by MyDreamTrains


MyDreamTrains (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MyDreamTrains You don't ask a question, but I have reviewed your draft. An infobox with no prose will not be accepted as an article. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about a person. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:44, 27 April 2022 review of draft by Jkerk78


Trying too get page published about company and also trying to include logo and it is telling me that it is not allowed. Jkerk78 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do anything you need to disclose your paid editor status on your user page per the instructions on your talk page, your draft has been declined because it is just an advert for your company and has zero reliable independent sources, which is what articles are based on. Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:55, 27 April 2022 review of draft by KeyvanLBJ12


KeyvanLBJ12 (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I submitted a wikipedia page however got declined with the following stated:

"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 (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). 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."

How do i proceed?

KeyvanLBJ12 Wikipedia has articles, not pages. You only have two sources in your draft article. A Wikipedia article about a musician must not merely document the existence of a musician and their music. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Which of the notability criteria do you assert this person meets? 331dot (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay do you recommend I delete the sources and submit for drafting again? KeyvanLBJ12 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeyvanLBJ12 I recommend that you first determine which one of the notability criteria for musicians this person meets, and then gather at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this musician that demonstrates that notability. Significant coverage is not just documentation that the person exists or where their music can be found, but independent, in depth coverage about the musician and what makes them notable. Independent means that interviews and other primary sources are not acceptable for establishing notability. Please read Your First Article.
Note that successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- it's really a good idea to first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles, as well as using the new user tutorial, before attempting the diffcult task of creating a new article. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:22:02, 27 April 2022 review of submission by Thuita J. Maina


Thuita J. Maina (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thuita J. Maina You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your blog. Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- such as the definition of notable web content. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

10:39:50, 28 April 2022 review of submission by Mookaloo

Hi I've used very few links to the subject's own website, so please help me understand what else I can/should link to. I've stated facts rather than opinion, so I similarly don't know what to do to make it read less like an advertisement.

Many thanks

Mookaloo (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'builds digital services that empower people living in poverty to improve their livelihoods" is just blatant marketing, do you have a connection to the company by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:50, 28 April 2022 review of submission by Quasselstrippe

Hi. I proposed to add a foundation registered in the Netherlands, working currently in german-speaking countries vor from poverty affected people and raise awareness for poverty in Europe. It is basically a translation from the german Wiki and I also think it's important to have an english speaking entry either. What do you think is needed to get an approval within the process? many thanks

Quasselstrippe (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:17, 28 April 2022 review of submission by 2409:4054:219B:3D14:9078:43F2:A629:FCB7


2409:4054:219B:3D14:9078:43F2:A629:FCB7 (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't about Mehmood specifically, being about his company - and even then they're trash for that purpose. Coverage of the company is not coverage of the person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:52, 28 April 2022 review of submission by 203.190.13.142


203.190.13.142 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of this article is disjointed and almost conversational, with each paragraph just being a single sentence about a thing he said. I cannot speak to the sources (automated translation stumbles on South and East Asian languages); I'd ask WT:INDIA. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:36:45, 28 April 2022 review of submission by MermaidDemon777

I am mixologest simply trying to get myself out on the bigger streets. MermaidDemon777 (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't our concern. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:16:03, 28 April 2022 review of draft by 185.12.222.174


  • "Hello. We have reviewed your comments on our drafts and followed the Wikipedia guidelines. That said, we submitted a new revised text more than a month ago. Can you please check it out? We thank you for your time. Best Regards."*

185.12.222.174 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IP editor, did you personally take the picture that is in the draft? Nevermind, someone else (probably) uploaded it.

Apologies. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

07:27:19, 29 April 2022 review of submission by Koqkpa


Koqkpa (talk) 07:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my page got declined...?

 Courtesy link: Draft:HD 22333 Unsourced. See WP:RS TechnoTalk (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:48, 29 April 2022 review of draft by Daisycat32


Hello!

I was looking for clarification on two connected issues.

Firstly is the question of notability - I am writing an article about an actress, and I am finding it very hard to judge whether she is "notable" enough for wikipedia. She is a german actress living in the UK, so a lot of her past work was in Germany and a lot of my sources are German newspapers etc. However she has recently written, directed, produced and starred in a short film that has won awards at international film festivals. Where would she fall on the spectrum of wikipedia "notability"? Should she instead be trying to create a page on the German wikipedia?

The second question I have is regarding the sources used to support "notability" - I have been told by a wikipedia reviewer that interviews are not considered a reliable source, but I have a hard time understanding why. I was told it was because interviewers don't generally fact check what people are telling them, but I don't think this is entirely true - I would expect most good interviewers to double check they weren't publishing lies... Also if this is a hard and fast wikipedia rule, I question whether it is appropriate to apply this to actors as surely you have to be a pretty famous to have a profile written about you rather than an interview - I would argue that people that aren't household names are still "notable" enough to have a wikipedia page about them. As far as I can tell the main source of press for actors are interviews with them, and so seems a bit mean that they can't use them to prove what work they have done, and therefore if they are "notable". Furthermore, having looked at a lot of actors wikipedia articles to hep me write mine I can see that tons of actors use interviews as a source, and in some cases as their only source. So who is right?

Please could you give me some advice on how to proceed, as I am finding this particular topic very confusing.

Thanks so much! :) --Daisycat32 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisycat32 (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Daisycat32:, for your first question, she would need to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Have you looked at both of these? The fact that she won awards is one thing but we need to see that in the references (which need to be reliable sources as well). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as interviews, it is assumed that the publication did not do independent fact checking. After all, they are simply quoting the interviewee. That is why articles that talk about them in depth are better used. This shows that while the person may have been interviewed, the writer did independent fact checking and wrote a story in their own words as opposed to simply reprinting quotes from the interviewee. Do you have something showing that the references you are trying to use did fact checking for the interviews? --CNMall41 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:54, 29 April 2022 review of draft by Rat


Rat (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon!

I have set up the draft article on Prof. Franz M. Matschinsky, who died a month ago, and asked for a review. Unfortunately the draft was declined. I'm quite sure that Matschinsky qualifies for a Wikipedia article, but I'm afraid my English is not good enough to improve the article to meet the necessary standards. On the German wikipedia we start an article as a stub and if it doesn't meet the standards it is discussed for deletion. This way it may draw attention of others who are willing to keep and improve the article. I had hoped for a similar procedere on the english wikipedia. There are several articles on the web describing and honoring Matschinsky's merits on diabetes research but I'm not fluent enough to reword those texts (I think one shall not just copy text from other sources). Perhaps there is a special interest group on medicine, especially diabetes, who are willing to help me on this article? --Rat (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rat You may wish to go to the Medicine WikiProject and request assistance there. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:25, 29 April 2022 review of submission by 216.30.182.130


Do these articles meet the requirements for Wikipedia's notability standard "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?

https://technical.ly/startups/willowtree-growth-hiring-attracting-technologists-charlottesville-virginia-software-development/

https://wina.com/news/064460-willowtree-moving-to-woolen-mills-factory/

216.30.182.130 (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those describe a routine business activity(the moving of a location of the company) and involve an interview with the CEO. We want to know what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this company, not merely what its activities are. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:57:50, 29 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Havenbase


I received this message about a draft I submitted - "Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers." - I apologize as I did not mean to annoy reviewers. I was unsure of how to edit the article since I am an associate of the subject. I have read more on conflict of interest editing and just to confirm, the edits should be requested on the talk section of that article itself correct? --Havenbase (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Havenbase (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Havenbase: That is correct. Specifically, you want to make the request at Talk:George Gadson, which is a separate page that exists solely for the purpose of discussing how to improve the article of that name. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Havenbase:, I added one of the images from your draft, but you will need to use the talk page as stated by Jéské Couriano above. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:14:20, 29 April 2022 review of draft by Zeeke west


Zeeke west (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is considered significant coverage?

https://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=174517

does this count fro the article I am writing?

@Zeeke west: No, it does not (unknown provenance). No listed author; who actually wrote this? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok so what about these?
https://www.loadingmag.com/grabbz-demands-to-be-paid-his-worth-then-some-on-toonies-loonies-single/
https://calipost.com/grabbz-proves-why-hes-one-of-torontos-top-rap-entrepreneurs-on-toonies-loonies-single/
https://1stdayfresh.com/2022/04/27/grabbz-is-making-money-moves-on-his-toonies-loonies-single/
This is a credible author from HipHopDx Zeeke west (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are you not citing HipHopDX and instead citing all these websites that are mirroring it? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And while we're at it, refer to the top table here:
A Google search (string: hiphopdx grabbz) fails to bring up the alleged HipHopDX article you mention, so I must assume the article either doesn't exist or was deleted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No he is not on hip hop DX yet it is the author that writes for the magazine I ment. But I think I understand, the Source Magazine will be doing an article on him soon, So it would need to be from a credible author speaking on him and his successes. Correct? Zeeke west (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're looking for sources that are in-depth, non-routine, independent, written by identifiable authors, and published in outlets that have competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No he is not on hip hop DX yet it is the author that writes for the magazine I ment" - Do you have knowledge that he will be written about in DX by that author? --CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

03:02:48, 30 April 2022 review of draft by ReaderCai


There are no more available reliable cites that can be used for writing my article.

ReaderCai (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can't have an article on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:58, 30 April 2022 review of submission by Muthukumarsivan


Muthukumarsivan (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Pepul (social network)
 Courtesy link: WP:ANI § Draft:Pepul (social network)
We don't reward sockpuppeteers. All of your sources are unacceptable; I will not go into the details as to why. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 11:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:39, 30 April 2022 review of submission by WLDMR


Hello! So the reason for the rejection of the article is to name an already existing entry about Zaid Jabri. I looked at the existing page Zaid Jabri and found that the page you mentioned was rejected a year ago and has not been edited by the author for 5 months, although the page is not ready in terms of content and methodology. For this, my variant of the page User:WLDMR/Zaid Jabri is extensive in terms of content, source-based and finished.

The person Zaid Jabri is internationally recognized as the leading modern Syrian composer. He is named and linked on several pages at English Wikipedia. Articles about him are published in German and Russian Wikipedia. It's time to present it in English Wikipedia as well. He is a bridge builder between European and Oriental traditions. This person is of great importance for the development of Arabic Syrian music. This area (culture and music) as well as the region itself are fundamentally underrepresented in the cultural context on Wikipedia and on English Wikipedia.

I ask you for a solution.

Thank you!

WLDMR (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WLDMR: By all appearances the draftspace page is destined to be deleted in ten days' time (since it hasn't been touched since it was undeleted). It actually hasn't been substantially edited for about a year, with the last edit being by the undeleting administrator to forestall a stale-draft deletion; it's safe to assume the draft has been abandoned (and the likelihood of it being restored is lower because they haven't actually edited it post-undeletion). I would wait for the draftspace page to be deleted, then try again with the userspace draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfelt thanks! WLDMR (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:34, 30 April 2022 review of draft by Muthukumarsivan


Muthukumarsivan (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the responce given above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:00:33, 30 April 2022 review of submission by Syarafina Nur Sabrina

I don't know how to publish my article properly. Please give me some assistance Syarafina Nur Sabrina (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syarafina Nur Sabrina I have answered you at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:55, 30 April 2022 review of submission by Abarry24


Abarry24 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC) hello i need support for editing, my my blogs - i just starter blogging on wikipedia. my first blog was decline. please support the me.[reply]

We aren't a blogging platform. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:03, 30 April 2022 review of submission by Riley Kowal


Riley Kowal (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Riley Kowal: Draft has since been deleted as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

02:53:56, 1 May 2022 review of submission by Cmykpoly


When the article had sources, it was rejected for reading like an advertisement. Now, it's being rejected for reading like an advertisement and not having enough sources. Is it the choice of words that are being used?

I'm trying to create a page like this one: Unirac

Thank you!

Cmykpoly (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmykpoly Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a company and what it does. That's considered advertising even if you are not soliciting customers or selling something. 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, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. It should not just document the existence of the company and describe its activities. Staff interviews, press releases, announcements, and the like do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article.
It could be that the other article(not a mere "page") is also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. (I haven't looked at it yet) As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I see. I guess I was confused because that page had been approved and published and I did try to follow it as a model. Is there a reporting process for inappropriate articles? Thank you for your feedback! Cmykpoly (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmykpoly: It wasn't, actually. (Created 2011/05/25.) See User:Jéské Couriano/A brief history of AfC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano What are you referring to in your reply that wasn't approved? I know that the article I was trying to create was not approved. However, in my reply, I'm referring to the article I used as a model: Unirac. Is it not approved either? But it comes up in Wikipedia searches. How can you tell if an article is approved or not? Thank you. Cmykpoly (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmykpoly: Unirac predates AfC as it is used today, and therefore did not go thru a drafting process. As such, it was never "approved" because drafting as it is today just did not exist at that time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Oh I see. I thought articles pre-AfC were just auto-approved (like a bot scanned it or something. I don't know what I was thinking). I didn't realize that because there wasn't a process in place at all that means that it's technically not "approved" by today's drafting standards, even though it's published. Thank you for the explanation. If we come across articles such as these that aren't appropriate, are we supposed to report them or anything like that? Also, is there a way to tell if an article was approved by today's drafting standards or is it just by looking at the references? Thank you! Cmykpoly (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pages that went through the drafting process will have been moved out of draftspace or a user's sandbox as part of approval, and the mover will indicate it's an approved AfC submission in the move summary. As for older articles, we generally encourage people to bring them up to modern standards if they're able or send them to deletion debate if this is impossible. Wikipedia is a work in progress, after all, and no article can ever truly be considered "complete" by any definition of the term. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:17, 1 May 2022 review of submission by Koqkpa


Koqkpa (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Submit

This is an attempt to shame a person. Should be speedily deleted. TechnoTalk (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a speedy deletion criterion for pages like this: WP:G10. I've tagged the draft accordingly, which also entails blanking it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: re-signing for ping —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:17:13, 1 May 2022 review of submission by Ploreky



Hello, i have a question, I made a draft site about the National Shrine of Ina Poon Bato, but it was declined due to some issues. I am eager to change it, but I discovered it was Deleted, and it took me 5 hours to make it. I you have a copy, can I please copy it?.Ploreky (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ploreky: We can't restore copyright violations. While you could in theory look at the (alleged) source, doing so will not help a new article in any way, as any new version would have to be different from the deleted version, both on grounds of copyright and because of Wikipedia's content policies, amongst other things verifyability and Neutral Point of view. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay okay. I'll wright another one that doesn't violate the rules.
Thank you Ploreky (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:26:21, 1 May 2022 review of draft by Aamarafa15


Aamarafa15 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aamarafa15: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim in the article that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a in-depth, non-routine, independent source about them written by an identifiable author and published with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts that can verify the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. On top of all that, the article is hagiographical in tone; we have no tolerance for this and our readers generally hate attempts to use Wikipedia for promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:56, 1 May 2022 review of draft by CollectiveSolidarity


How do I publish an article in the Wikipedia namespace? I have a WikiFauna that I would like to submit called the WikiMime. Thanks, CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC) CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I have published it here. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

07:05:29, 2 May 2022 review of submission by XXX-Rays


Thank you for you support on a way to posting af the article. Let me know if the decision is not a final and I have a possibility to improve the text still.

I am ready to fill the article with new facts which are on way this moment.

XXX-Rays (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @XXX-Rays:, there's a number of notices on your user talk page, including a pretty detailed one in the section User_talk:XXX-Rays#February_2022, explaining what's needed in terms of sources and content, to show notability. Despite this, you have resubmitted the draft multiple times with the same problems remaining, and that's why it was finally rejected. It looks like each time the draft was declined you simply added another source, without making sure that the source actually met the requirements, and then resubmitted – as if you merely did the absolute minimum in order to have the article published instead of trying to turn it into an actual encyclopedia article. Why didn't you add the "new facts" to the draft already? And how come you only edit this one draft? --bonadea contributions talk 07:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will add them. Need time to compose well, sorry. XXX-Rays (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to do that – the draft has been rejected, and that means it won't be considered further. --bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@XXX-Rays: What is your connexion to this company? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the question. I have answered the question. I have no connection to the company. But I do have connection to the industry as far. That's why I am informed well. XXX-Rays (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:51, 2 May 2022 review of submission by ElontheWikiEditor

Please could someone review my Draft: Aniebiet Inyang Ntui. I have done all the corrections as I was told. I added more content with credible citations to make the article notable.

ElontheWikiEditor (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElontheWikiEditor: you submitted the draft for review 12 hours ago, and it will be reviewed at some point – none of us can predict when that will happen. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:27:21, 2 May 2022 review of draft by Andrea.ca


DSI Underground My Article on DSI UndergroundDraft:DSI Underground keeps being rejected, and I really don't know why. DSI is a company, there are not that many outside sources other than the one book. I've taken everything out that sounds like an ad, and still it says it sounds too much like it. Can someone please help me? I have not included anything other companies haven't included. Thanks, Andrea.ca

Andrea.ca (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1085800908"