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 Wikiputta (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 1 June 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


May 26

03:25:38, 26 May 2022 review of submission by 219.74.237.99

Hello, I've attempted to submit a draft for the aforementioned page several times, but the drafts have been rejected due to concerns over notability. It is my understanding that I require a certain volume of independent, secondary sources mentioning the subject of the entry in detail. I've currently provided multiple sources for each claim/reference in the entry, all of which do seem to meet the independent/secondary source criteria. Could I receive some assistance with getting the entry suitably revised and successfully published? Concrete advice regarding specific steps that need to be taken would be fantastic. Thank you! 219.74.237.99 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start by assessing your sources. Refer to the top table at User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Barring the Her World article I pointed to, every other source is unusable as presented. Two of the sources need to have new links/cites provided. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:53, 26 May 2022 review of submission by Fasal075


Fasal075 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Wikipedians, am requisting you to help to create my first article on wikipedia, i have created a page for well known business women based from kerala and doing her business in Dubai since 1990, she is also the vice president of Flowers TV (Indian TV channel). i have tried to publish the content but rejected, i strongly believe that the subject i have selected isin evitable from wikipedia so help me to rectify the errors in the article and republish the same.

11:39:38, 26 May 2022 review of submission by Ugoji.john

Good day Wikipedia's, please can someone help me out? I have an Article in sandbox which i have tried to move to the main page but it is replying that "This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect: From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed) or is the result of a page move. One reason this page was kept as a redirect is to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. Any redirect with a page move logged on its history page should be tagged with this rcat template."

But I want it move, so that my sandbox will be empty.

Can someone help out??

Ugoji.john (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugoji.john, there are a few issues here. First, your article was not ready for main space as it was a combination of essay and promotional material. Second, it has now been nominated for speedy deletion as copyright violation since the bulk of the article is a copy and paste of [1]. It may be helpful to read this guide to writing your first article, as well as familiarizing yourself with copyright policy. In short, Wikipedia articles summarize what reliable sources say about the topic and except for brief quotes, articles never directly copy what the source says.Slywriter (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your speedy responds. I applicate your comments but none of the above comments is applicable to the work. Nevertheless, can you help empty my sandbox so that I can put this article as a new one and send it for preview? Ugoji.john (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the redirect, so that you can access the page. You needed to go directly to the page or click the redirected from link to get back to the sandbox. From there, just blanking the page gets rid of redirect. And I would not be so dismissive of copyright violations. Continual violation of copyright can and will lead to restrictions on your ability to edit wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ugoji.john Much of your draft is a word-for-word copy from https://datalab.com.ng/artificial-intelligence-in-nigeria/. I don't know why you say "none of the above comments is applicable...".
The source: Leo is an AI-powered digital assistant introduced by the United Bank for Africa in Nigeria. It is a mobile banking chatting platform that is used for financial transactions such as paying bills, checking balances instant responses, football updates.... Hmmmm, there's a comma missing in that phrase after "balances".
Your draft: Leo: This is an AI-powered digital assistant introduced by the United Bank for Africa in Nigeria. It is a mobile banking chatting platform that is used for financial transactions such as paying bills, checking balances instant responses, football updates... complete with the same missing comma.
That is a copyright violation. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:58, 26 May 2022 review of submission by 65.51.171.246

because i think people need to know who ill be one day 65.51.171.246 (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do that on social media- Wikipedia is not social media, but an encyclopedia of topics deemed notable, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:12, 26 May 2022 review of draft by Slichsluch


I would like to hear opinions if there is any way to get the draft approved. It was first declined with a "Comment: Paid for puff piece, stuffed with trumpery "largest installer", "world’s first"..." which I generally can understand (though all those adjectives were present in the sources). So I removed all the "firsts" and "largests", leaving only facts and numbers along with the sources. Yet, it's declined again with a statement "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." which I don't understand.. Any ideas how to make it read like encyclopedia entry? Best, --Slichsluch (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Slichsluch (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slichsluch As you have declared as a paid editor, I assume that you represent or work for(directly or indirectly) the company you are writing about. You have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is and does. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does; it is an encyclopedia. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(and not based on materials from the company) to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Staff interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. We don't want to know what the company does, but why the company is significant. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, thank you for your reply. "A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(and not based on materials from the company) to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company" — but this is what the article is about, no?
Is it that you think that the company is not notable? I think it is, because it is the largest company in the country. Two editors who declined the draft did not question notability but the tone of the article.. Best, --Slichsluch (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slichsluch It certainly could be notable, but that is not yet demonstrated in the draft by the sources. The sources just document the specific facts given, which is needed, but that is not sufficient to establish notability. It's not enough to just say "it's the largest such company in Australia". What about its size makes it significant or influential in its field? Microsoft does not merit an article merely because it is a large company, but because of its influence in the field of computing and society more broadly, as independent sources observe it to have. That article doesn't just say "Microsoft sells X copies of Windows a year. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:19:06, 26 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Academictapatio


Hi, I need assistance with copyright violations. I'm unsure if it's just the sources or how I cited them. I'm also unclear about what needs an inline citation in the "Background" section. Conversely, what could I cut or keep if wanted to make the article into a stub? Thank you!

Academictapatio (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Academictapatio: I'm assuming you mean this Draft:Divya Victor?
The first thing I'll say is, please don't edit, remove, or otherwise mess with the AfC tags and comments; they are there for a reason. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright law can be tricky, granted, but the basic premise behind it is very simple: you cannot use what isn't yours. You aren't allowed to copy & paste (or too closely paraphrase) text that someone else has written; you need to write in your own words. And you cannot upload an image that you didn't create yourself. The only exception to these rules is where the original creator (or otherwise the copyright owner) has expressly given their permission for their content to be used, in which case we need to see evidence of that. You can read more at WP:CV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll combine my answer to your last two questions (what needs citations, and what to cut or keep) into this: every material statement, and anything potentially contentious, needs to be supported with a citation to a reliable source. If you cannot do so, then remove that content. Why? Because without a source to back it up, it's just your say-so. And given that your draft currently has one source, cited once only, virtually the entirety of it is unsupported, and potentially needs to be removed. Which would, indeed, leave a very short stub, if anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Academictapatio: I've stripped back the draft article, added refs and removed close paraphrasing. Divya Victor is now in mainspace. Other editors can decide if some of the history should be deleted for copyright reasons.Bogger (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

Request on 02:37:55, 27 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Varungoyal1997


(Redacted) Varungoyal1997 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hosts, should this phone number and DOB be redacted? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm contacting oversight. (The DoB isn't oversightable as they're over the age of majority; the phone number *is*.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:26:09, 27 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rave lakshya


My Articles of Creation Draft: Dr. Ujjwal Patni was rejected on the grounds that references are not strong enough and I need help with making the article better


The article was rejected and the editor says the references are not good enough. I have added the most prominent news links and editorials to support the article and I need help with making the article a success.

Rave lakshya (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rave lakshya: the problem here is that your sources cannot make up for in quantity what they lack in quality. We need to see significant coverage of this person, in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. What we don't need to see is press release regurgitations like this, which quite frankly are embarrassing. Give us a few solid sources, and summarise in a neutral and factual manner what they have said about him. That is all that's required. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:15:39, 27 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jairocugliari


I have difficulties in proving the notability of this subject by Wikipedia rules. The ENBIS non-profit organization is recognized in Europe as on important centre on industrial mathematics (https://euro-math-soc.eu/industrial-mathematical-activities-europe). Also, the topic is mentioned in different Wikipedia pages as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Greenfield and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Box_Medal so I've understood that the article was for creation (disclaimer: I am a member of the organization). I didn't include all the references I have, there are several others. Is the notability a matter of number of references? Quality of the references?

Jairocugliari (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jairocugliari You seem to have a common misunderstanding of Wikipedia in that it is not a place to just tell about an organization and what it does. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia a Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You don't have any sources that do that- and the last reviewer must think it's not likely to find them, which is why they rejected your draft and it won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jairocugliari: both the quality and quantity of the sources matter. Quality is important, as no amount of poor sources can establish notability. But quantity also plays a role, in that we need multiple good sources; exactly what 'multiple' means, isn't really defined, but it is more than just one or two. See WP:GNG for more info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing to add Masaya hokazono and other mangas.PLus updating japanese manga and novel stuff here

Say I wanted to add Masaya hokazono and his mangas Kichikujima aka Freak island,Pumpkin night,etc from the japanese wikipedia page but don't know how to so i wanted it to be added. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%AC%BC%E7%95%9C%E5%B3%B6 Here is masaya's page on japan wikipedia https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%96%E8%96%97%E6%98%8C%E4%B9%9F.

Plus also adding Ingoshima and it's prequel Camgoroshi

Also adding in Ryu Horie and his works. Here is a link to one of his works https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8B%87%E8%80%85%E3%81%A8%E9%AD%94%E7%8E%8B%E3%81%AE%E3%83%A9%E3%83%96%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A1

Also update the dead tube wiki page here with the japanese information https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Tube

Also Higanjima page with the japanese wiki page https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%BC%E5%B2%B8%E5%B3%B6?wprov=srpw1_0

Also Ira Ishida and his call boy books https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9F%B3%E7%94%B0%E8%A1%A3%E8%89%AF?wprov=srpw1_0

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A8%BC%E5%B9%B4 https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%9D%E5%B9%B4

There is also the third and final book --2601:403:4201:A1E0:C013:5B7C:50DF:D3AF (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they have pages on the Japanese-language Wikipedia does not mean we can have pages about them here on the English-language one. Each edition of Wikipedia is its own project with its own standards and policies. I would read up on en.wp policy before attempting to translate any of these, particularly WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability for the lot and WP:Biographies of living persons for the mangaka. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:32, 27 May 2022 review of submission by Billbike2

Dear Fakescientist8000: Greetings! I am William S. Bike, and I am asking you to reconsider your rejection of my draft of a Linda Howe page for Wikipedia, and that you will allow it to be posted.

You called Ms. Howe not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I would like to respectfully disagree with this point. Ms. Howe is the author of four books—two with Sounds True Publishing and one with Hay House, which are major publishers in the self-help genre. Her fifth book will be published next month by yet another publisher, Modern Wisdom Press. Her books are therefore desirable among competitive publishers. Her book How to Read the Akashic Records is ranked #65 in the Parapsychology category on Amazon.com. Ms. Howe has sold thousands of books over the years. She therefore is a significant author.

Ms. Howe is the first person to make the Akashic Records (a subject long ago accepted for a listing on Wikipedia) accessible to the masses in several countries. She therefore is a significant pathbreaker. Since Wikipedia has that entry on the Akashic Records, if the Akashic Records are a significant enough subject for Wikipedia to allow an entry on it, it seems logical that a top author of books on the subject should be included on Wikipedia as well.

She also is one of the leading teachers of the Akashic Records in the world, having taught thousands of students in several countries. This makes her internationally significant.

Ms. Howe has won four awards from the Coalition of Visionary Resources, making her acknowledged as a significant figure from an important outside organization.

Let me give you some information about my own credentials. I’ve been successfully posting on Wikipedia for about 15 years. I am a career journalist and media expert. I’ve been published in over 65 venues, including the Chicago Sun-Times and university publications at Loyola University Chicago, DePaul University, the University of Chicago, the University of Illinois Chicago, the University of Illinois Springfield, and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I’ve been published in several peer-reviewed/refereed journals: the Delta Epsilon Sigma Journal, Nine: A Journal of Baseball History and Social Policy Perspectives, and the Review of Pacific Basin Financial Markets and Policies. I have appeared on CNN, and been quoted in Forbes, USA Today, Epoch Times, and other major media. I am the author of four books. I’ve earned more than 60 journalism awards, including the Peter Lisagor Award—the top honor in Chicago journalism. As a career journalist, media commentator, and contributor to referred journals, I understand the importance of accurate and viable sourcing and information, and I believe sources and information about Ms. Howe are sound.

Wikipedia already has an entry on Linda Moulton Howe, a journalist and film maker who covers aliens, cow mutilation, and crop circle conspiricies. I believe differentiating two authors who happen to have similar names is important to both of them.

So I hope you will reconsider rejection of this article about Ms. Howe and allow it to be published. I would welcome any advice about suggested changes that will help the article be accepted for Wikipedia. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope you have a great week!


Billbike2 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billbike2 To address Fakescientist8000 directly, you should use their user talk page(User talk:Fakescientist8000). Most of your draft appears to be sourced to self-published(by Howe) sources. If you have contributed articles for 15 years, you should be aware that a Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say, not what people say about themselves. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Billbike2 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:20, 27 May 2022 review of draft by Nidhi Janu


I donot understand why this article is being declined. This is an educational work based on study from various websites. There is no plagiarism or advertising involved. It is a completely neutral work intended for MBA graduates to understand the basis and methods of lead generation marketing.

Nidhi Janu (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhu Janu What you wrote is an essay of original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and is written in an encyclopedic style. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nidhi Janu Also, WP is not a "how-to" guide. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

00:38:28, 28 May 2022 review of submission by NonzeroCornet34

So I was told my article looked like an advertisement. I'm not sure how, and therefore do not know how to edit said article to make it seem less like that. So how can I change it to make it good? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a how-to guide. An article shouldn't be talking to/at the reader, nor should it be providing instructions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to explain the ins and outs of the language, but I see where you're coming from. How do I fix it? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You fix it by focusing on summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the topic, instead of telling the specifics of the language itself. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if only one source exists at all? NonzeroCornet34 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To merit an article, a topic must receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources- typically at least three. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:36:57, 28 May 2022 review of submission by Nautilus126

I am requesting a re-review for two reasons. First, the reason that was given for my article's rejection was that the subject is "insufficiently notable" for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this were the case, why would there be so many articles posted about her online, both from her native Malaysia and around the world? Other than the articles I cited in the references section, there are many more that I did not include as they were not relevant. Second, I am being paid by the subject to make this page, and I would like to get this over with after so many months.

I left a similar comment a few weeks ago and received a reply saying that a draft that has been rejected will no longer be considered further. In the event that viewers question why I am requesting a re-review/asking for help, I leave this explanation: under the "Submission rejected" comment, there is an "ask for advice" button, which brought me here. It says nothing about a draft not being further considered once it is rejected- in fact, I was directed to this page upon seeing the rejection comment. If a draft being rejected means it will no longer be considered, why would there be an "ask for advice" button that allows users to request a review?

I would greatly appreciate a reconsideration of the rejection of my draft as well as any recommendations on what I can add/remove to the article so that It can be published once and for all. Thank you! Nautilus126 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The similar comment I mentioned was replied to with "A knowledgeable editor should answer here soon," but as time passed, my comment was erased before any editor could assist me. Nautilus126 (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you made the formal paid editing declaration, but I may have missed it. The "ask for advice" is not necessarily for requesting a re-review, but for, well, asking about the rejection. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: FYI, the paid editing notice is here (that's why I tagged the draft, as this was in an unusual location). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the input box for this page explicitly says "Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review."
Is there any information/source that can be removed in order to make the page more acceptable? Thank you. Nautilus126 (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nautilus126 If you remove sources, you must have sources to replace them with and summarize. If those existed, the draft would not have been rejected, most likely. If you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage (that are not primary sources or brief) that you have not yet used, time to put your cards on the table. If you don't, my advice is to go to Sarah May Lowe and tell her you are unable to complete the task she gave you. If she specifically paid you to create an article, I would also suggest returning her money. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is noted, but what parts of the article do you think are referenced with sources that you consider to be "unacceptable"? I can just remove those portions and keep the other parts that have sources you believe are suitable. I would greatly appreciate your help on this if you can. Thanks, and I hope to hear from you soon. Nautilus126 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nautilus126 I don't believe any of the sources are suitable, and if by chance one or two were, that is insufficient. This has been explained to you and perhaps you are too invested in this to see that. I've said how I think you should proceed. You are certainly free to disregard me and see if others feel differently than I, but I think you would to be frank just be wasting your time and their time. I do wish you only the best. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got this. I will speak to her and get back to you if she wishes me to continue. Thanks. Nautilus126 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:49:30, 28 May 2022 review of draft by RajRum3ls


RajRum3ls (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:51:08, 28 May 2022 review of submission by The100%for real


The100%for real (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The100%for real: because it wasn't an article, or even an attempt at one; it was barely legible, and from what I could gather, some sort of self-promo blurb. FYI, this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{I F**king know its not a social media site but if you whould get your head out of your A*s then you would see that i am only doing this for other people} The100%for real (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't care. Attempts at using Wikipedia for SEO (which is pointless anyway, as the site is NOFOLLOWed) are always going to be declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my artical declined

16:53:59, 28 May 2022 review of submission by 103.124.250.164


103.124.250.164 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:25:27, 28 May 2022 review of submission by 194.44.239.128


194.44.239.128 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

02:57:14, 29 May 2022 review of draft by 124.253.156.45


124.253.156.45 (talk) 02:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. You have resubmitted the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:43:08, 29 May 2022 review of submission by Ohtranquilsoul


Hi there, I submitted this article over an over and you kept rejecting it, I provided all the needed preferences, this article is for a famous well known singer in Bahrain, I need you advice please to approve this article.

Thanks.

Ohtranquilsoul (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohtranquilsoul The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears he does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Many or your sources just document the existence of his music. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:25, 29 May 2022 review of draft by Tergy


I need help finding refrences, the only things are on a single website For my draft page. TERGY 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tergy: if the only source you're citing is the company's own website, and are struggling to find further sources, then this very strongly suggests that the subject is unlikely to be notable. Bear in mind that you would need to find not just one but multiple independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay someone should just delete it. TERGY 18:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:32:29, 29 May 2022 review of submission by 103.161.56.185


103.161.56.185 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC) An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'pages')). Please try again or refer to the help desk.[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rakshika Jain
We do not accept articles that are not in English. Please post this on the Hindi Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:35:23, 29 May 2022 review of submission by Mwill66


Hume's Pass now created. Dear Help Deskers. This article has just been approved by Stuartyeates with this note “Hume's Pass, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.” This was approved after substantial rebuilding with Theroadislong during which all of the issues shown in the Template [inserted below] were resolved. I attempted to follow the instructions for removal of a template but I cannot even see these words below when I open edit source and attempt to follow the instructions to remove them. Template: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (December 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)" Can a Help Desker who is authorised remove the template and its words or otherwise advise me. Thanks again for all of your help. Mwill66 Mwill66 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Mwill66 (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwill66, I have removed from the article. Congrats on publishing to mainspace.Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

03:23:34, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Kenny Hodgart


Hi there. I've had a submission rejected for not meeting minimum requirements for inline citations. My article is short and I have included several citations, so I would like to request help identifying specifically where more / different / better use of citations is needed. This is my first submission and I'm very much at sea. Thanks in advance for any replies. The article is Draft:Bruce Aitken

Kenny Hodgart (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenny Hodgart: firstly, please link to your draft (Draft:Bruce Aitken) so we don't have to go looking for it, thanks. Secondly, you should really make your COI declaration somewhere more visible and obvious than in an edit comment.
Now to answer your question, yes, I can see that you have included three inline citations, but that isn't enough to support the contents, as most of the draft is still unreferenced. (Meanwhile, you have several citations which are just piled together at the bottom, where they serve no purpose as far as supporting the contents goes.) Please note that every material statement, as well as anything potentially contentious, and also any private details such as DOB, must be clearly supported by citation to a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:49, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Guiderius

This is my first Wikipedia submission. I have been told I need sources for my first 3 paragraphs. Please help by telling me what you would regard as acceptable sources. The paragraphs in question deal with the subject's dates of birth and death; education; and employment. Thank you. Guiderius (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guiderius It's actually quite simple. How do you know where and when she was born? Where did you find the information about her education, exibitions, scholarships, etc? The books, articles, websites, etc where you found that information are the sources you must reference. If you know something only because she or someone associated with her told you or you have access to private documents that are not available to the public you cannot include that information because it is unverifiable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:04, 30 May 2022 review of draft by DRI HQ


My draft was rejected even though I've tried to write it according to Wikipedia standards and declared my COI on my user page. I've made more edits to make it more neutral, but it would be great if I could get feedback on how to improve it even more. Thank you.

DRI HQ (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DRI HQ First, you will need to change your username immediately, please see how to do this on your user talk page. Second, Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell about itself and what it does- any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:35, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Mwill66

Hi Slywriter Just wanted to thank you for fixing it. All the Best, Mwill66Mwill66 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Mwill66, I have removed from the article. Congrats on publishing to mainspace.Slywriter (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwill66 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:38:43, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Amarsinghmodels


Amarsinghmodels (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:02, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Tai Curry

This is my first Wiki article and I followed the tutorials, I would really like to get this page (Sanctuary of Refuge) reviewed, resubmitted and approved. There is a similar organization with an approved page, "Restored Hope Network." My article was declined due to not listing secondary sources and not writing in an encyclopedia format. Honesty, I used "Restored Hope Network" wiki page as a guide. Please Help! 2600:1700:FF10:1070:557A:CE35:DA8D:652 (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant promotion, we have zero interest in mission statements and content like "the desire to live free from the bondage of homosexuality in controlling their lives." is deeply offensive. Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:25, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain


Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

              Pesonal Details

Born Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain 10 December 2004 (age 17) Tehsil liaqatpur, District Rahim yar khan, Punjab, Pakistan Spouse(s) Not spouse yet Parents Malik Zahoor Ahmad Arrain (father) Relatives Family of Malik Sajid Residence(s) Thullhamza, Tehsil Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan Education Islamia University Bahawalpur (BS) Nickname(s) Malik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain (talk • contribs) 13:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Sajid Zahoor Arrain: This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I recommend you put your information on a social media site instead. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:45:05, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Tarkenblo

Hi, I would like to know why my article submission was denied, and what I can do to improve it. The message tells that the article doesn't have significant coverage, even though I have put 6 references from multiple sources (3 peruvian journals (El Comercio, La Mula, PressPeru) and the UNESCO website). Why are these sources not considered enough? I thank you in advance for the help.

Tarkenblo (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarkenblo: that decline notice isn't saying 'the article doesn't have significant coverage'; it's saying that notability is not established, because the sources cited are not adequate, which may mean that they do not provide significant coverage of the subject, and/or that they are not sufficient in number, and/or that they are not secondary, and/or that they are not independent and reliable enough. What you need to do is to carefully study the notability guideline WP:GNG and ensure that your sources satisfy that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:08, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Sourabh10101996

This is a notable article.

Sourabh10101996 (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sourabh10101996: it self-evidently isn't (and neither is Draft:Sourabh Kumar Poddar), so I would suggest that you just drop this now. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:17:46, 30 May 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by CreecregofLife


On the decline that there's been no improvement since, I do not believe is a sufficient decline reason and is an inaccurate representation of the page. Combined with being a canned response, it leaves the page in a bind with no actual suggestion on how to improve the page. I would argue it was not properly reviewed, so I resubmitted it. Within hours, it was reviewed with "No improvement since the previous decline." Which means again, there was no actual proper review of the page itself. They just saw nothing changed after it was declined and declined it again. It's incredibly unhelpful and if resubmitting isn't going to matter, this seems the best place to go. " CreecregofLife (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CreecregofLife: you say (twice) that it was not "properly" reviewed — I'm curious as to what evidence you have for this?
And on a separate point: why resubmit something without addressing the reason(s) why it was declined earlier? Does it not stand to reason that if a draft has been declined as non-notable, and nothing much has been subsequently done to help establish notability, then it might be declined again for the same reason? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence I have is the reasoning for decline is incompatible with what the article actually contains. Claims of no reliable independent sources is completely untrue. Notability was established, the disagreement was subjective, not objective, thus the second opinion. Said second opinion disregarded reviewing the article, and just went by the lack of change. That is not reviewing the article CreecregofLife (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CreecregofLife, @DoubleGrazing I think part of the confusion may be because @Kaleeb18's original decline they referenced WP:NFF which is only applicable to films and this is a television show. I am sure I have done similar in the past (oops!). Even so, I think decline is correct. The sources thus far are standard announcements (it was picked-up and the casting). The best source is TV Insider which does go into some depth about show but not enough to support notability. My suggestion is waiting until the show has been reviewed by reputable critics. S0091 (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it still shows significant coverage and the already-present sources are still reliable and independent. The reviewers put in canned responses that were incorrect and/or didn't address it. I'm just saying that I shouldn't have to wait until a fourth opinion to find a proper submission review that actually addresses its needsCreecregofLife (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources is independent, and none of them offers more than minimal (and largely identical) information. That includes the TV Insider source which contains all of four sentences, which are also found in the Deadline piece from December 2021, and part of it was copied verbatim into the draft (I removed the "plot" section which was a copypaste from Deadline). The declines are definitely correct. --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was correctly reviewed, I would have also declined this. Theroadislong (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This response is an example of missing the point CreecregofLife (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined because "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." which part of the reason do you not understand? Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)You are welcome to disregard the reviewers and place the article into mainspace, where NPP may send it back to draft or AfD. You can also wait 5 days when it will likely have reviews for first episode and clear notability. What's not welcome is you bringing a contentious attitude to another area of Wikipedia. Fix it, ignore the advice, or move on. Slywriter (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CreecregofLife: The article will most likely get accepted once the series is actually released and is covered by independent sources. Also S0091 I thought WP:NFF also applied to series as well is there a different guideline for that? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18 no, but I understand why you referenced it because it fits but television does not have its own notability guideline. The closest is Wikipedia:Notability (television) but that is an essay, not a guideline. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong (please do!). Also looking at your talk page, I am sure had @CreecregofLife reached out to you for clarification, you would have provided them more specific guidance. I wish that would have happened first. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the initial verdict rubbed so much the wrong way to me, I sought the second opinion. When the second opinion rubbed even wronger, that's when it became a recurring issue and that's why I brought it here CreecregofLife (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you have had a third, fourth, and fifth opinion from other AfC reviewers who agreed with the first two reviewers. There was nothing wrong about either of the two declines, except possibly that WP:NFF doesn't appply – but that was just an explanatory addition to the actual decline. --bonadea contributions talk 15:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:31:52, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Dr.YousufMiah


Dr.YousufMiah (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:48, 30 May 2022 review of draft by Blogger2022


I need help publishing a Wiki page for the company I work at. We are a small business that does not have many references, so it is hard to find multiple sources for the article. We attempted to publish an article with the references we have but it was declined. I think it was declined because we didn't have enough sources but I'm hoping I can confirm the exact reason that it was decline. Blogger2022 (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is largely a list of spam links and has virtually zero chance of being accepted, you also need to make the required disclosure of paid editing on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:59, 30 May 2022 review of submission by Coldagni991


Coldagni991 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:CoHNA Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:12, 30 May 2022 review of draft by Intelligence addict


I think my article is good but it keeps getting declined, how do I make it acceptable?

Intelligence addict (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence addict, which sources explicitly tie all the concepts listed together? and uses the title of futurism to do so?Slywriter (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I legitimately can't find one Intelligence addict (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be the issue. They may all be tangentially connected in that they are forward-looking but unless reliable sources are connecting them, it's tough to see how Wikipedia can have an article tying them together.Slywriter (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how can I get it submitted if there is no sources that fall in the required criteria? Intelligence addict (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligence addict If you do not have the sources, the topic does not merit an article, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

05:10:41, 31 May 2022 review of submission by 112.204.174.213


112.204.174.213 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:29, 31 May 2022 review of submission by AshVR

Hi, I received a notification saying that my article was declined, however on the actual draft it says that its still for review?? Can I get some clarity? AshVR (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AshVR: that's because you appear to have changed the templates. But not to worry, I've declined it for you again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! So it was declined for "non reliable sources"? - new to Wikipedia so I'm learning everything lol. AshVR (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the only sources cited are two Twitter accounts, and that's about as non-reliable as they come. Which is to say nothing of the fact that both accounts appear to be closely associated with the draft subject. (And in hindsight, for these reasons I probably should have rejected, rather than merely declined, the draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I appreciate for your help! I'll try my best to find some reliable sources and replace them there. Thank you once again. :) AshVR (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please also address the apparent conflict of interest. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions on how to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:13, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Adridzius


Hello i don't really understand what this question means; As per the previous comment, given the nature of the subject in-line citations are strongly desired to support each claim made. Please see this guide. S0091. Thank you. Adridzius (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adridzius: it means that you're writing about a controversial topic and making highly contentious statements, and it is therefore imperative that you support each material statement with an immediate inline citation to a reliable source which clearly backs up what you've said. Yet, as it stands, your draft doesn't have a single inline citation, or even any proper referencing as such. Please review the guide the earlier comment signposts you to, and ensure that the draft complies before resubmitting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, i don't know what to do. The sources i find are only the ones i linked in the references nowhere else. Adridzius (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adridzius there are two separate but related issues here:
  1. You need to cite the sources that provide the contents of the draft. For example, where does the information in the unreferenced section 'Skydas today' come from? If you read it somewhere, cite that source. If it's just your own conjecture, take it out (see WP:OR). The same goes for everything, if you cannot support a statement with a reliable source, then it has no place in the draft.
  2. You also need to provide sources which are sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. The ones you've listed (though not cited) in the 'References' section may, or may not, be enough for this; I'm passing no judgement on them either way.
You must address both points 1 and 2; otherwise this draft cannot be accepted. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:56, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Maansouz


Maansouz (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question you wish to ask @Maansouz? (You have resubmitted your draft and it is awaiting review.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:47, 31 May 2022 review of submission by True Balkan Historian


True Balkan Historian (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC) bc the thing i wrote is way too good to get rejected (fr)[reply]

@True Balkan Historian: I came close to reporting you, actually, but held back as you appear to be a new editor. I would advise you not to repeat this, though, because that particular excuse has now expired. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:24, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:07, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ShayanXtreme You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:23, 31 May 2022 review of draft by ShayanXtreme


ShayanXtreme (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:27, 31 May 2022 review of submission by Paulgorry


Hi there, I was just wondering why the submission for The Black Skies page had been rejected? Many thanks...

Paulgorry (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulgorry: it hasn't been rejected, it has been declined, meaning you're welcome to resubmit, once you've addressed the reasons for declining. That reason being lack of notability. Notability per WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft only cites one source, a YouTube clip. It also lists, without citing, an interview and a blog. None of these meets the GNG standard. And if all this band has released so far is one single, then they wouldn't be notable under WP:BAND either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulgorry: I made some improvements, but there's not enough sourcing. This other source I found [[2]] is a bit too promotional and fan-focused to help demonstrate notability, but could be used to source some background. It's still not enough. Please see WP:TOOSOON. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:42:20, 31 May 2022 review of submission by Qarva2016


Qarva2016 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


(Redacted)

Removed obvious spam. Unsurprisingly the editor is blocked and their draft deleted (as G11, natch). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:35:25, 31 May 2022 review of draft by QiuLiming1


@The Most Comfortable Chair: Hello, I am very not sure why this article is declined because of notability, on zhwiki, it have 20 different supporting sources, it is also widespread in chinese social media. PEP textbook is used for more than 70% of student in China for 10 years, and inappropriate illustration many effect thousands or millions of student. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, there is no article this draft can be merged into. QiuLiming1 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello QiuLiming1. Although the incident is being covered by the mainstream media right now, it is too early to tell whether this will have any lasting significance or impact. Education in China could be a place to potentially merge content from the draft, particularly to the "Issues" section. Alternatively, I noticed that Wikipedia has an entry on Higher Education Press but not on People's Education Press — this could also be an opportunity to start an article about PEP (an obviously notable government entity) with contents of the draft included in a potential "Controversies" section. — The Most Comfortable Chair 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QiuLiming1: I'm going to echo the comments above that this is not appropriate for an article. Nobody is going to come to Wikipedia and look this particular title up. However, I'm going to take a different approach with my recommendation to you. While there may be a suitable place for this info in Education in China, it is recommended that you let someone else add it. Per Wikipedia:Competence is required, while English fluency is not required, since "minor spelling and grammar mistakes can be fixed by others," from the current state of the article, I do not believe that your English skills will allow you to successfully write the content. Per guidelines, "if poor English prevents an editor from writing comprehensible text directly in articles, they can instead post an edit request on the article talk page." TechnoTalk (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk: I actually looked up the exact title as it is written on Chinese Wikipedia, but I do understand maybe their is no enough significance for it to be included in an article now. For that reason, I do not think that should be included in Education in China article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also, another article related to Chinese new, 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak got keep during an afd, could you breifly explain the difference of their notability? QiuLiming1 (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding of the AfD discussion, participants seemed to agree that an article covering the outbreak specific to March 2022 would not be notable itself. However the consensus was that expanding the scope of the article to a timeframe of a year was warranted since the outbreak and its consequences persisted beyond March (PERSISTENCE) and merging this article (which was likely to expand in its coverage of events) would be inappropriate per SIZESPLIT. There were also various comments that pointed to the unique circumstances of the 2022 outbreak, which strengthened the case for it having a separate article per CONTENTSPLIT.
In contrast, the draft covers an event that is much narrower in its scope as well as timeframe. Essentially, it is not possible to determine if events covered in the draft would be reported on for much longer — while it would be reasonable to expect that the duration and peculiar details of 2022 Shanghai COVID-19 outbreak would ensure sustained coverage. As of now, it is unclear whether or not this textbook controversy would be independently notable per NEVENT, and it would be best to wait for now — DELAY: "Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote." — The Most Comfortable Chair 05:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:43, 31 May 2022 review of draft by Vladdy Daddy Silly


Why are the sourced not verified? they are used for the page about the romania-brazil relations. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

after the feedback of an admin i decided to delete the article. Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved comments to chronological order and to display author. @Vladdy Daddy Silly: (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). TechnoTalk (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

01:57:42, 1 June 2022 review of submission by MattMili


MattMili (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MattMili: Neither of your sources are acceptable - we can't cite streaming websites or YouTube (connexion to subject). Are there no in-depth, non-routine, independent sources that are written by identifiable journalists/music critics and published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:58:58, 1 June 2022 review of submission by 174.87.117.120


174.87.117.120 (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:06, 1 June 2022 review of submission by Somesh.j9

Hi, I've recently attempted to submit a draft for the mentioned page as my first submission, but the draft has been rejected due to concerns over notability. As I understand that I would require more significant independent/secondary sources addressing the subject of entry in detail.

I've currently provided references to meet the independent/secondary source criteria for reviewing the facts shared in the draft. It will be more helpful if I could receive some assistance with getting the entry suitably revised and successfully published? Concrete advice regarding specific steps that need to be taken would be very much appreciated. Thank you! Somesh.j9 (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Somesh.j9[reply]

@Somesh.j9: media outlets are subject to the same notability requirements as anything else, meaning they must meet the WP:GNG standard of showing significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Currently your draft lists no such source, citing only the paper's own website, and two sources providing access to past issues online; these only prove that the publication exists (if that), but do not contribute towards notability in the slightest. (There is also the possibility of notability per subject-specific criteria, as outlined in WP:NMEDIA, but nothing in the draft suggests these would be met.)
On a different point, it isn't clear where the information in the draft is coming from, as you haven't cited your sources inline, and have instead simply piled all the cites at the end. This makes it difficult to verify any of the statements. Please see WP:REFB for advice.
Finally, you should write in a neutral tone, without trying to promote the subject: expressions like 'coveted', 'quite remarkably', etc. are puffery and have no place in an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:46:43, 1 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Lordofhunter


My topic is notable as per WP:NBASE. Still, the top authority sources are removed and the draft is rejected.

Lordofhunter (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lordofhunter: The draft has been declined, not rejected; a declined draft can be edited and resubmitted. The three sources you had included were Wikipedia mirrors and other wikis. Such websites can't be used as sources in Wikipedia. Have another look at the information in the decline notice and on your user talk page. Follow the links in the notices – they have a lot of info about the requirements for sources to be considered reliable. --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Updated sources, please check. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:36:02, 1 June 2022 review of submission by SandAndrew


Company is well established and also getting good presence in Google Trend and Local and National News..so Expecting someone to help me to publish this company

SandAndrew (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandAndrew: the draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. Also just to clarify, "well established and also getting good presence in Google Trend" are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:42, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Mango150


Mango150 (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just wondering how the sources in this don't show notability, and I'm not sure how I didn't write neutrally and being accused of making an attack page? I thought this was just informing people about a political candidate. Many thanks.

@Mango150: for the record, I didn't 'accuse' you of anything; no need for the drama. I said care should be taken so this doesn't result in an attack page. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. However, how do the sources not establish notability? There are plenty of articles of him on google, and the articles mentioned mostly contain him, and one contains the election results which included him. Mango150 (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider the Real News Hub a reliable source. Not that I know it, but their style of reporting, and the way they describe themselves in the About section, doesn't suggest that.
Candidate profiles, campaign news, manifestos, etc. are routinely reported around election time, and are essentially based on the single event of the candidate running for election. Had they not stood, they would not have warranted such coverage.
The 6 May 2022 ABC News story comes, IMO, closest to providing significant coverage, but it alone isn't enough.
That's my take of it. If another reviewer sees this differently, they're of course more than welcome to overrule me and accept this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Is there any way to find the actual nomination forms of the candidates in the electoral commission? Would that establish enough notability? Mango150 (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There also also several other sources that report on the same ABC News story you referred to, such as:
quite a lot more too Mango150 (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Hi again, sorry for so many replies. I have just updated the page again. I have removed the Real News Hub, and added The Brisbane Times. Wondering if it is now worthy as an article or not? Mango150 (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:21, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Billy Rosendale


Hi there!

I updated this article Regius_Professor_of_Engineering (Edinburgh) to add the Incumbent regius professor, Themis Prodromakis.

I thought it entirely appropriate to create a biography article for Themis (as exists for the preceding professors in the list) and suggested this to colleagues working in the field of research.

And so we have created a draft article: Draft:Themis_Prodromakis.

First submission was declined for lack of citation. Which I tried to rectify.

There was also a comment regards copyright violation but I have been assured the content was written for this Wikipedia article and then copied to Themis's Imperial profile page - not the other way around! I have not worked out how to reply to comments made by reviewers - or indeed how I could give verification that copyright has not been violated in this instance.

The second submission has been rejected based on the poor quality of references.

I am really struggling to find verifiable sources for citation. For example, Themis is Visiting Professor at the Department of Microelectronics and Nanoelectronics at Tsinghua University but I could only find his own tweet on Twitter to verify this.

Is it simpler to delete claims for which verifiable sources cannot be found? Can anyone offer advice or help improve this draft article? Comments suggest the article will be deleted if it fails another submission.


Cheers Billy

Billy Rosendale (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Billy Rosendale (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Billy Rosendale: this person should be inherently notable per WP:NACADEMIC, on account of the named chair, and possibly one or more of their Fellowships as well, so looks to me like they warrant an article. Of course, those claims would need to be supported by reliable sources, but these can be primary (eg. university staff profiles etc.).
All material or potentially contentious statements, as well as any private personal details such as DOB, will need to be supported by reliable sources via inline citations, and any content that cannot be thus supported must be removed. This is especially important in articles on living people, see WP:BLP.
Finally on a different point, you need to formally declare your conflict of interest, as you appear to be professionally connected. I will post a message on your user talk page on how to do that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:21, 1 June 2022 review of draft by Wikiputta


Wikiputta (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1090976857"