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 Jordis DASComm22 (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 15 June 2022 (→17:27:06, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Jordis DASComm22: Reply). 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


June 9

03:02:50, 9 June 2022 review of draft by 174.88.30.132


Am I all ready to go? 174.88.30.132 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:28:49, 9 June 2022 review of submission by Anton Godfrey


Anton Godfrey (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked for spamming) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:08:46, 9 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Natalie EPT


Hello there. I am trying to create a page for The Ectopic Pregnancy Trust. We are a small charity in the UK that works hard to raise awareness of ectopic pregnancy and support those who are affected by it. We work alongside many independent notable organisations who I have listed in the article, on research. We are also a founding member of Baby Loss Awareness Week in the UK, along with SANDS - who are are listed on Wikipedia.

Please can you advise what more I need to do to get our page published? I have listed many of the independent organisations that we work with - and provided the supporting documentation that shows they consider us a credible source of information. The organisations listed include the NHS, the UK Government, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Society for Reproduction and Fertility.

Please can you help? Many thanks.

Natalie EPT (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natalie EPT: I'm sure your trust is worthy and does a lot of important work. Alas, in what comes to notability in the Wikipedia context, none of that matters (much); nor does working with notable organisations. Wikipedia only summarises what others have said about a subject, and therefore notability is defined in terms of existing coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. To warrant an article, you need to find significant coverage of your trust in newspapers, TV documentaries, radio programmes, books, etc., and this coverage must be independently produced, not based on eg. the trust's press releases or similar material. You then precis this coverage, citing the sources where it was published. Conversely, without such sources, it will not be possible to publish an article on your trust. (See WP:GNG for more info.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:42:02, 9 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I need help regarding the Draft. The subject person is notable though, I might missing something. Is there any experienced editor to assist me? I'm yet unable to understand why the draft is pending(after declined), even though I have done a massive edit. I'm yet unable to understand what's wrong with the updated draft. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NeverTry4Me You resubmitted it and removed the prior reviews; these must remain on the draft. You actually have too many sources in the draft. A small number of high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. Sources that you use must provide significant coverage of this person, not just a brief mention or telling us what they do. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you. This is what I was missing in the draft. Now your assistance will help me a lot. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:45, 9 June 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123

Please approve my draft. zIt's been 6 months. Billapartygang123 (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billapartygang123 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability. You will have to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:25:00, 9 June 2022 review of draft by CatIvan


Hello,

1. Am I using correctly the categories and portals for this article? For example: should I use the larger as well well as the narrow scope categories? 

 say: "Canadian>Ontarian>Franco-Ontarian>northern Ontarian", 
 or "Cultural personality>Artist>Visual artist>Painter"

2. What is a good article on how to best use categories and portals?

Thank you! Cat

cat (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CatIvan: categories and portals have no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted at AfC. If you want to ask about them more generally, I suggest you do so at the TEAHOUSE. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:00, 9 June 2022 review of submission by Nwiles1414


My submission got rejected for being an advert, but we wrote the article as an industry-focused explanation for a new technology process and cited scientific references.

What would we need to change to get it accepted?

Nwiles1414 (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Accounts are for individuals only. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You find (and base the article entirely on) published sources wholly independent of the developers. (I can't see the deleted submission, but I'm guessing that all the scientific references were to papers by the people behind the process. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. Wait until other writers, unconnected with the developers, have chosen to write about it - and not just to cite it). ColinFine (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question was written like a white paper written by the company behind the process right down to including the ™ behind the use of the name. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:49:42, 9 June 2022 review of draft by 2604:CB00:273A:700:2415:39EC:B731:46A1


I need the Just dance controller page

2604:CB00:273A:700:2415:39EC:B731:46A1 (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for this article are almost to a one non-sequiturs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 10

04:51:36, 10 June 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me


I want to know whether this kind of AfC draft is allowed for submission or not? Though I have to expand the draft more. If such AfC is not allowed then I shall stop working on such draft. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 04:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: members of legislative assemblies are presumed to be notable per WP:NPOL, if that's what you're asking. Obviously the article still needs to be appropriately referenced and otherwise compliant with the various guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing and this draft:Madan_Kalita? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 05:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: the Draft I have submitted along with Draft:Madan_Kalita as both passes WP:NPOL. Kindly assist me if I'm missing something in these drafts. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: AfC drafts are reviewed in due time. You can work on the drafts in the meantime. Please stop asking for preferential treatment. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea I was just curious whether such Drafts are eligible for AfC submission or not. If not, I shall delete them. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding @Bonadea here. NT4M, you've been advised to stop jumping the queue. Your drafts are of no more importance than any other editor's. There is no deadline and reviewers will come along whenever they do. cc: @Deepfriedokra Star Mississippi 15:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me:. Jeez. What's the rush? Please wait your turn. And no, I don't think you are ready to end the AFC only restriction. Please feel free to appeal that at WP:AN six months after you were unblocked on Sept. 7, as I've gone inactive . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra my apology. To be honest, I forgot to change the help title, and asked "whether this kind of AfC draft is allowed for submission or not. Due to my negligence the topic continued even after the drafts were submitted. @Star Mississippi I tender my apology with good faith. Further, I assure, I won't land into this kind of mistakes. Regards - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 23:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:23:23, 10 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 97.89.193.22


I am the elected District Attorney of St. Landry Parish Louisiana. There are only 42 DAs in Louisiana. I am the only registered republican ever elected to this position in this parish (county). I have been covered in statewide newspaper articles and local television news programs. That's it. Should I continue to try to be published? Thanks, Chad.

97.89.193.22 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you should read this guidance on creating autobiographies WP:AUTOBIO, which will hopefully convince you not to do it.
Beyond that, much depends on the availability of sources: you say you have been covered in many newspaper articles and TV programmes, yet your draft cites none (yes, it mentions one possible source, but it isn't properly cited). Please see the general notability guideline at WP:GNG for advice on how to establish notability, and WP:REFB for advice on how to reference articles. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And please read WP:Biographies of living persons. If your draft is bereft of sources, or has far too few in-depth, non-routine, independent sources written by identifiable journalists and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts, it will be declined. Sourcing is king. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:20, 10 June 2022 review of submission by Bikebagel

Hello, my submission for this article was rejected on the basis that is sounds too much like an advertisement. I'm looking for clarification on what aspects in the article sounds too much like an advertisement. I kept to the information directly related to the carshare, and did not include any pricing data. I tried to follow the established article for Modo, another carshare service, which, in my opinion, sounds more like an advertisement than my draft for peg city car co-op does. There is an difficulty in writing about a company while avoiding terms that sounds like advertising. Any guidance on how to improve this article will be much appreciated!

Bikebagel (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bikebagel It's an advertisement because it just tells about the company and its offerings. Wikipedia articles must do more. 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.
As you have found, using other articles as a model is a crapshoot, as they too could be problematic. 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, use those classified as good articles.
If you work for this company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Very helpful links here, I will review what you have sent and make updates to my draft :) Bikebagel (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 11

09:55:20, 11 June 2022 review of submission by NeverTry4Me

Though I assured not to land here again the Draft:Madana_kalita is rejected, even though the draft person clearly passes WP:NPOL. I request an experienced review. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 09:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was NOT rejected it was declined, and please do not cast aspersions on reviewers, all reviewers are experienced. Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NeverTry4Me That a topic passes the notability criteria does not guarantee it an article. There still must be significant coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. Your draft only states that this individual was a legislator and passed away due to cardiac arrest. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot please assist me what more I shall include in the Draft. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NeverTry4Me You need to summarize independent reliable sources that give this person significant coverage. If no sources exist beyond confirming they were a legislator and that they passed, the person likely would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the temporary reviewer is angry without knowing what is MLA in India? - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 10:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to open up an additional section with each question about the same draft. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume the reviewer is angry with you? 331dot (talk) 11:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@NeverTry4Me: I don't know who it was aimed at, but I am going to take issue with this 'temporary reviewer' slur, which continues in the earlier vein of suggesting that some reviewers are not competent and/or somehow not good enough to review your drafts. I'm not expecting you to be grateful to volunteers for giving their time to review your drafts, but basic respect would not be at all out of place IMO. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:05, 11 June 2022 review of submission by Angkynrhr


Angkynrhr (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angkynrhr You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. I see you declared a conflict of interest, if you work for this company you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This draft was rejected, each sentence is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:03:05, 11 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 007Ranjeet



007Ranjeet (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @007Ranjeet? The draft was declined several times, and finally rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but why it is rejected it is a college please guide step by step what to do how to add this. i have doing this watching other college page from my city this is a govt institute what to do next? 007Ranjeet (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@007Ranjeet: You cite only one source, and that source is a profile (too sparse/connexion to subject). Even if that source were acceptable, one source is not enough for us to have an article on a given topic. And based on Google search results (string: ["christ college" cuttack]) there aren't really any in-depth, non-routine, independent sources about the school that are written by identifiable journalists and published in outlets with competent editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts that we can actually base an article off of. So the answer to "what to do next?" is "Abandon the draft for now". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there are other sites am adding can i create a new draft 007Ranjeet (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@007Ranjeet: As long as you have the sources to support it, yes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:38, 11 June 2022 review of submission by 209.203.8.10


209.203.8.10 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


please advice what i must do further.

@209.203.8.10: The article has been rejected, due to the subject's lack of notability. See WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:56, 11 June 2022 review of submission by 209.203.8.10

Page have been rejected , an i do not know how to fix it.

209.203.8.10 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, the draft was rejected and won't be considered further, for repeatedly ignoring requests to declare WP:COI, no improvement in sourcing to establish notability, and large portions of text still being unsourced. I suggest you find another topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:59, 11 June 2022 review of submission by Nighthawk789


Hello, I had a draft submission deleted by a reviewer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Needlecraft_(magazine) , and that was my only copy of the text. I spent many days editing the content. Is there a way I can get a copy of it now? I wasn't aware that sentences I was citing from other internet sources could not be direct quotes but had to be rewritten in my own words.

Nighthawk789 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nighthawk789: As a rule admins are very uncomfortable restoring or providing anything that's a copyright violation, as it would then open Wikipedia and themselves up to legal liability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nighthawk789: I'm the reviewer who tagged it for speedy deletion as copyright infringement. The draft consisted almost entirely of text copied from a few different sources. It is much harder to create a well-written article by copying sentences from a source and then trying to rewrite them, than it is if you read the source, noting the main important facts, and then compose an entirely new text based on those facts. It is also very difficult to avoid plagiarism when writing a new text by rephrasing existing sentences. In other words, the admins wouldn't actually do you any favours by sending the text to you. --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:09, 11 June 2022 review of submission by Ombhusal9


Ombhusal9 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ombhusal9: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant advertizing and, as the subject is involved with NFTs, dropped a sanctions alert on your userpage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:17, 11 June 2022 review of submission by BaldiBasicsFan


Look, I tried my best, but it wasn't accepted. Why do you guys mean about using me sources as "legal"? Télé-Loisirs is a good source for French airdates, especially since one of the countries that produces the show is France. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan: "Legal" is not the word I would have used, but we generally don't cite social media except to attribute quotes as such websites have no editorial oversight. And airdates are the absolute last thing you should worry about; Animation Magazine is (possibly) the only viable notability-granting source you cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Is there an actual reliable source that has French airdates? I might add a citation needed notice on the airdates if there isn't any. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BaldiBasicsFan: Forget the airdates, focus on proving the show is notable first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Replaced the Gigglebug reference, as that could be seen as original research, that research is forbidden per WP:OR. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 12

09:11:27, 12 June 2022 review of draft by Ruby Stillman


Ruby Stillman (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my draft has been rejected multiple times, but I am unsure what exactly to change to improve it. If someone could offer specific recommendations, that would be very helpful. My draft is for the Eastern Mediterranean International school. Thank you.

Ruby Stillman You have a common misunderstanding as to what a Wikipedia article is for. It is not to merely document the existence of the topic and tell what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond the mere reporting of what the organization does. In the distant past, mere existence merited a school an article, but this is no longer the case. As such, you may see other such articles that are like yours, but these simply have not been addressed yet. Interviews, press releases, and announcements do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:EIILM-Kolkata

Hi, please help me improve my first page that has been moved to Draft namely WP:EIILM-Kolkata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshup666 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:20:14, 12 June 2022 review of draft by Arieliris


Hi, the draft article has been declined by two reviewers - I would greatly appreciate a third opinion or eventually some advice/guidance on how to improve the draft.

The subject of the draft article seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Michael Murray is one of the youngest CEO at the FTSE 250 company - i.e. some of the biggest listed on the London Stock Exchange.

BBC News, The Guardian, Financial Times, Sunday Times, Telegraph and Bloomberg News, Washington Post reported in lenghts on this - with entire articles and not only whole paragraphs (which might have been enough, too?). The sources are in my understanding reliable - as they represent the UK mainstream media, with Bloomberg, Washington Post from the US in addition hereto. They seems to be independent, too.

There are inline citations to almost every single detail mentioned - to the sources which are reliable, free, on-line and in English.

Thanks a lot!--Arieliris (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arieliris (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arieliris — if you feel that the sources now satisfy WP:GNG and would like to get another review to confirm this, you need to request that by clicking on the blue 'Resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks a lot for the suggestion @DoubleGrazing- let's see how it works out now. Arieliris (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:42, 12 June 2022 review of draft by Quodprod


The reason for the decline does not satisfy standard Wikipedia standards on editing in this respect. The editor simply asserts that the article is not written from a neutral point of view and that there are no sources for verifiability. In what way exactly is it not written from a neutral point of view? All that has been presented about the initiative are merely FACTS. Facts sourced to mainstream press, institutional and academic reports. Please, where is the exact feedback about what aspects of the article need to be better sourced and amended to make it more neutral?

Quodprod (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asserted that it reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia has little interest in their "Aims & Objectives" for example and have you read WP:SOLUTIONS yet? Your draft has been created multiple times under different titles and also speedy deleted five times. Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:35:07, 12 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Wicontrib22


I don't see why it was declined. Could you please help me to clarify concretely what is needed? I checked the references and footnotes and everything seems correct.

Wicontrib22 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Education" and "career" sections are unsourced, as is the "Al-Marri’s role in the Qatar blockade" section. Theroadislong (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

05:00:57, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Zikri Aiman

Please re-review the article. I have already made edits to it. You can check it now. Would request you to please live the page. The information provided is 100% original and not at all copied from anywhere else. Please re-review and live the article. Also, if rejected, let me know the clear and long reason for the same. Awaiting your response back. Zikri Aiman (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zikri Aiman: as the reviewer says, "blatant advert". It's not a very long reason, but hopefully clear enough. I might add that the draft only cites the company's own websites as sources (plus a pointless reference to the MAS site), which obviously does nothing to establish notability. (I also don't quite agree that the content is "not at all copied", but at this stage that's somewhat academic.) Therefore, this is the end of the road, and the draft will not be considered further. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:29:52, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Gobautista


Can you help me and advise me on what I should do to improve this article worthy of approval. Thank you.

Evo1885 07:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gobautista: nothing; that would be what's proverbially referred to as 'flogging a dead horse'. After four earlier declines, the draft was rejected since it was clearly going nowhere in terms of sourcing, and will therefore not be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for this information and thanks for the reply. Evo1885 07:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:30, 13 June 2022 review of submission by 14.139.220.217


14.139.220.217 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC) The article Draft:Mihir Bhatta is Not a pass of WP:NACADEMIC WHAT to do? Please, Help.[reply]

If the person isn't notable, either by way of NACADEMIC or GNG, then there isn't much you can do; can't magic notability out of thin air. If, however, they are notable, then you need to present your evidence of that before resubmitting, as otherwise the draft is likely to be declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:00:50, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Kirtikanani2


Kirtikanani2 (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kirtikanani2 You don't ask a question, but the draft you wrote was deleted as blatant advertising. I can read it as an admin, and I concur with the deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. Any 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 the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you work for this company, you must read the paid editing policy for information about a required formal disclosure, required by the Terms of Use. You should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:14, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Emery Cool21

1. I has been editing it 2. The game has got more than 10 million download on Play Store, so it may be notable enough 3. Has been abandoned since 2019

Emery Cool21 (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emery Cool21 Wikipedia is not a gaming guide and as such it should not have extensive details about the game itself and its features. It should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about the game. The Criticism section is completely unsourced. Who criticizes the game physics? 331dot (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:01, 13 June 2022 review of submission by Yoan Darmonski 474843

Since I need to upload this for a university project, I wanted to ask what exactly is wrong with my wiki page, so I can fix it, and make it approvable. Yoan Darmonski 474843 (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a How To. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this article be saved at all? Could you write some points about what should I change? Thank you in advance! Yoan Darmonski 474843 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoan Darmonski 474843: no, it couldn't be saved, at least not without a major rewrite/restructuring. As Theroadislong says, Wikipedia does not publish how-to-guides (or essays, blogs, etc.). You would need to somehow find a way of turning this into an encyclopaedia entry, and I for one can't think how you'd do that.
And on a separate but related point, we essentially publish summaries of what other reliable sources have published about a topic, and given that this appears to be based on your first-hand experience, it would fall at the hurdle of sourcing and notability, as well as be considered original research, all of which are cardinal sins here on Wikipedia. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing, that is fair. So, what I understand from your statements is that I should just exclude my experience in the matter and focus on writing more theoretically correct based on already existing sources. All in all, no first-hand experience talk, only encyclopaedia facts. Yoan Darmonski 474843 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:59:09, 13 June 2022 review of draft by 184.56.32.168


184.56.32.168 (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question?
Or let me try and anticipate one. The reason why this draft was declined is because it cites all of one source, all of once. That is nowhere near enough to either establish notability of the subject per WP:GNG, or to support the article contents. It barely verifies that the building existed, but that isn't enough for inclusion in a global encyclopaedia — otherwise we would potentially have an article on every building in the world. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question is: can you add an image to my project? I would really appreciate it! Just search up “distribution terminal Warehouse Cleveland” on google. Or maybe just use this link: <ref>distribution Terminal Warehouse cleveland</ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.32.168 (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image doesn't help your draft at all. Focus on the sourcing instead, rather than rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:58, 13 June 2022 review of draft by AntoineDTate


AntoineDTate (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I received some feedback on why my article was rejected.

Here's the note...

"Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: I'd recommend removing external links from the body. SiliconRed (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)"

I'm a little confused because the external links are in the "Bibliography" and I've seen quite a few articles about prominent book writers that have external links in their bibliography.

Here's an example ---> Ta-Nehisi Coates

I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Thanks.

@AntoineDTate: this draft wasn't declined because of inline external links (that's an earlier comment from February); it was declined because of lack of inline citations: the entire 'Early life' and 'Personal life' sections are without any citations, which is unacceptable in an article on a living person (see WP:BLP). HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:54:52, 13 June 2022 review of draft by Grward


Grward (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question @Grward? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


June 14

00:24:59, 14 June 2022 review of submission by 197.247.241.143


all sources are independent and not created by the person involved

197.247.241.143 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:52:56, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Malvika 30June


Hi This is regarding my article on Dr Malini Saba. Since this is my first time on Wikipedia, I wanted to know what all changes/additions I can do to the profile submitted to make it public. The same profile is already public in many of the newspapers and online portals.

Request your guidance on it.


Malvika 30June (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Malvika 30June:
There is nothing you can do, because the draft has been rejected and will not be considered. But if you were to write another draft on another subject, which you're of course welcome to do, you need to avoid the mistakes made in this one, namely: this draft is highly promotional in nature (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging site, and certainly not a place for personal promotions and advertising), and it is completely devoid of sources which are needed not only to support the article contents but also to establish that the subject is notable enough to warrant its own article.
Another thing: since you mention that the same profile exists in other sources, I've just run a copyvio check on it, and indeed it seems the text has been lifted from sources claiming copyright, which not only breaks Wikipedia's rules but actual laws. I will now request that the content is deleted accordingly.
Finally, you refer to it elsewhere as 'our' article, which suggests that you may have a connection with the subject, and for that reason I have placed a conflict of interest (COI) query on your user talk page, to which you should please respond before editing further. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:33, 14 June 2022 review of draft by Ihsnavihs


Hi,

I had written and submitted an article on IPSA (International Professional Security Association) a while ago that was rejected with feedback of seeming advertising with lack of a neutral point of view and that it needed better references.

I have now completely reworked the article based on the feedback and would like to get some feedback on it before i submit it to Wikipedia again.

Thanks. Ihsnavihs (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsnavihs Just noting it was "declined", not "rejected". Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, declined means it is. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Ok. Thanks for the correction Ihsnavihs (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you declared a conflict of interest, if you work for them, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, understood. Would you be able to review and suggest what further changes and edits I could make to be able to get it accepted? Ihsnavihs (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihsnavihs: whether this can be accepted or not is something that gets determined when a reviewer carries out a review, so let's not try to jump the gun, please. But FWIW, I for one would be declining this for being promotional; it basically reads like it came straight from the organisation's marketing department (!), whereas we want something that essentially summarises what other, independent and reliable, sources have said about them — without any spin, gloss or promotion. We also don't need to know about the management team and founders, etc.; save those for their website.
If you want to increase your chances of an early review, you could cut down the REFBOMBING: 86 sources is way OTT, especially as many of them are non-RS like Twitter and LinkedIn; we also don't need multiple references for each cell in those tables. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:23:51, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Emery Cool21

I have fixed 2 issues, removing the gaming guide and removing the criticism section. Also, this article is may be notable enough, and the game had more than 10 million downloads in Play Store.

Emery Cool21 (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Emery Cool21 — notability does not stem from 10 million downloads; it is based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have, of their own volition, said about the subject. Your draft only cites Fandom, Facebook, YouTube and app stores. None of these contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:36, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Ts7852


Can someone help me why the sources I cited are not reliable? They are all so reputed sources but still I got feedback that my page is not cited by reliable sources...

Ts7852 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ts7852 It isn't that the sources you provided are not reliable, it is that you don't have enough. You have two reviews that do contribute to notability, but generally to pass AFC at least three independent sources are needed. The other sources provided seem only to document specific facts. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Physicswallah

Recently I've created Draft:Physicswallah and it was declined during review. However, I believe this is a notable subject as it was covered by tons of news organizations in recent days . I'd love to know what I can do to make the article eligible for being published on Wikipedia. Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonoist03 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:27:16, 14 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Arieliris


Hi again, the draft was just declined again - with the same reason/template. Help_desk#14:20:14,_12_June_2022_review_of_draft_by_Arieliris Do you have any advice on why the sources are not reliable or subject would not be noticeable - as per wording of the guidelines this seems to be the case. Thank you!--Arieliris (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arieliris (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything used as a source in this article is about Mike Ashley. Notability is not contagious; you don't get to be notable by being handed lots of money by your notable father-in-law. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:05, 14 June 2022 review of submission by CeeKoll


Page link of draft: Draft:Christopher H. Volk

Can you please advise me how to delete this draft?

Thank you. CeeKoll (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CeeKoll I fixed the formatting issue that prevented proper display of your message. I also removed the url (it's unnecessary) and converted it to an internal link. I deleted it. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:42:21, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Joshmac81


I'm frankly a little confused by the continued pushback on this article... In the numismatic community Highfill is someone who has contributed a lot to his area of the hobby and has been referenced in several sources not related to or created by him. If there is a copyright issue with the photo or whatnot I fully understand. But please point to what specific issues this article has because I'm having a hard time figuring out what makes this article or subject any less viable than others that cover figures from other pursuits. Thank you for your time with this submission and my inquiry about it.

Joshmac81 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshmac81: him being evidently keen to promote himself, and you being keen to get your client's profile onto Wikipedia, describing him as 'luminary' etc., doesn't get us around the fact that the sources cited in that draft do not establish the notability of the subject. And it's not like this was rejected straight off the bat; five experienced reviewers declined it before finally rejecting it, so there has been plenty of opportunity to cite better sources. Now it will not be considered anymore. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:50:01, 14 June 2022 review of draft by Mar.Morannon


When trying to list an artist independently, what is the criteria for being a "prominent member" of two or more independently notable ensembles?

Thanks,Mar.Morannon (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mar.Morannon (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:57:16, 14 June 2022 review of submission by Draty


Draty (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, this is not a hoax, this is the Top 4 newest flags in the world with administrative divisions & countries. The flags of Belize, Mississippi, Afghanistan & Honduras. So, please do not worry

@Draty: nobody has said it's a hoax, only that it's not a notable subject, and has no prospect of becoming an encyclopaedia article. In any case, the draft has been rejected. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

01:25:25, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Briankoh97


Would like to know if there are problems regarding the writing style; i.e. if it seems like an advert (written this with as neutral a tone as I could on my first attempt). Making changes to the references btw. Any advice is much appreciated! Briankoh97 (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briankoh97 I see you declared a COI. If you work for them, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a terms of use requirement.
You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does. It is a place to 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 "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of company activities, and cannot be based on materials from the company like interviews, announcements, press releases, etc. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot, thank you for the response! As such, I have updated the sources, including reports from The Star and FOCUS Malaysia (respected news organisations in Malaysia). Other that, duly noted regarding the disclosure, which I will make clearer as I am indeed an employee. Other than that, would there be further advice on this piece? Thank you so much for your time once again! Briankoh97 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Briankoh97: The pieces in The Star and FOCUS Malaysia that you added as sources are not independent, for the reasons that 331dot outlined above. Please make sure that you take a moment to read the information linked from the notices on your user talk page. One important and fundamental thing is that sources should not only be reliable and independent, but that they actually verify the content in the article. That is, all information should be supported by a reliable source, and sources that do not verify the information in the article fill no function. (Example: The first paragraph under "Products and Services" has a source at the end. The source leads to a page on the company website that doesn't verify any of the content.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:54, 15 June 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF


2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:08:11, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Serafina1248


Serafina1248 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering why my draft submission 'The Melismatics' wasn't accepted. I've fact checked everything twice and showed no emotion like you wanted, so I don't understand why you're declining it. If it's because the band isn't relevant enough, I've seen an entire wiki page about 'rotten apples'. With all due respect I think a page about a modern rock quartet is more relevant than rotten apples. Please re-think your decision to decline this entry.

@Serafina1248: did you actually read the comment the reviewer left (underneath that big pink box)? It says this is pretty close, just needs a couple of more reliable sources. And also that some of the sources you've used aren't acceptable, and need to be replaced. So it needs a bit more work, that's all. (As for your comment on 'relevance', this doesn't really come into it; notability does, but I'm passing no judgment on that at this stage.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Would you mind telling me what reference are incorrect and which parts need more clarification? And for your information, I did not see the 'big pink box' otherwise I wouldn't be here asking for help. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Serafina Serafina1248 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Nevermind, I see the box now. I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about before. I will work on all of this and thank you for your time. Sorry for the mix-up. Serafina1248 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:06, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Jordis DASComm22

Hello, I am creating a page for the Nebraska Department of Administrative Services, and my first draft was declined because of lack of non primary sources. Are .gov websites not trusted sources? If anything, at least relating to information about state government entities, it is the most accurate source.

In response to the reviewer's comment of " the actual context of what the agency is is not clearly written in an encyclopedic manner." What would be a good reference to see how to transform the following statement into encyclopedic terms?

" DAS serves the public through assisting other agencies by providing services such as procurement and surplus of property through Materiel Division, building repairs through the 309 Task Force, motor pool leasing and maintenance through the Transportation Services Bureau, HR business partnerships, process improvement through the Center of Operational Excellence."

While I do have DAS in my account name, this isn't an official account. I am an employee of DAS, just making this page in my free time as a retirement gift to my department's director. I am not trying to solicit or advertise through wikipedia. Just creating a page on a department that currently doesn't have one.

Thank you for your assistance.

Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordis DASComm22: yes, .gov and similar websites usually are reliable, but that's not the issue here. We cannot have an article based solely on what the subject says about themselves, we need to see what others have said about them.
That wasn't really the reason for declining, though; this was declined because it reads like a corporate brochure or some such, not an encyclopaedia article. Please rewrite it in concise, factual language, avoiding jargon and buzzwords, so that it is as accessible as possible to the greatest number of readers. And support it also with sources other than just the close and primary ones associated with the State gov't. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jordis DASComm22 I revised it a bit to make it more encyclopedic, but it still needs more sources. What about announcements of its activities that might have been picked up in local media? TechnoTalk (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Jordis DASComm22 you'll have more success if you refer to the proposed encyclopedia article as an article rather than a page. This is different than social media. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk and @DoubleGrazing thank you! I feel like I have run into a lot of problems in my time in wikipedia and most people are just looking to decline articles rather than help just edit it to fit the criteria or point me in the right direction. I will search for news sources outside of the .gov range for citations, I included one on the article from Politico. Would that be an acceptable source?
Do either of you have an example of a state government department article I could see as a reference? Is this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_General_Services) a good reference? Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1093300575"