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 SmartScience (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 6 September 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


August 31

01:43:38, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Taratagaytayo

I'm requesting help for the draft mention above to be review and if there is something else lacking can someone advice me or help what else need to be done. Job.com was notable online much more to Indeed I think because it was launched in 2001 and Indeed was launched in 2004. I hope someone will take a look and review. Taratagaytayo (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Taratagaytayo: While I will not discuss the draft beyond this point, Alexa Internet is defunct and no longer a valid cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taratagaytayo: you don't need to announce here that your draft is awaiting review, it will get reviewed in due course. But as it happens, I did take a look, and since it was such an obvious failure to establish notability, I've gone ahead and declined it.
Please note that churnalism does not establish notability, nor does routine business reporting (M&A activity, investment rounds, appointments, etc.). We need to see actual significant coverage, in multiple independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:59:57, 31 August 2022 review of submission by MrSunny5

MrSunny5 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question in mind, @MrSunny5? Genuinely interested to hear what it might be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Should MrSunny's e-mail be redacted from [1]? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:21, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Adnanalim444

09:46:21, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Adnanalim444 Adnanalim444 (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to write an autobiography or promote yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:35, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Tom.upload

Hello all! Trying my best to create a new page but it keeps getting declined. All my issues are to do with references and reliable sources even though I think I have enough. This is my first time uploading to wikipedia so any help would be awesome. Also if anyone reading this is a pro and wants to earn a little bit of cash for writing an article, (redacted) Tom.upload (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.upload I've added a link to the draft. Wikipedia has articles(or draft articles), not "pages". Do not solicit for paid editing here, please. Please see WP:PAID if you do so elsewhere, any one you pay to edit for you must disclose that. If you are associated with the event you are writing about, please read about conflict of interest.
The main problem you have is that you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this event in order to establish its notability as Wikipedia defines a notable event. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No amount of editing can confer notability on the event, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:30, 31 August 2022 review of submission by BillClyne

This query concerns a draft article called "DoITPoMS". It was submitted recently, but quickly rejected by Numberguy6. This appeared to be mainly on the grounds of it constituting an advertisement. I can completely understand this, but I'd like to suggest that it be looked at again, perhaps after I've made some minor edits to it. I did try to contact Numberguy6 directly, by submitting some comments to the Sandbox, but this may not have been done correctly. I also made an attempt to clear the idea of an article on DoITPoMS beforehand, but this also may have been submitted incorrectly.

I should first clarify that DoITPoMS is a freely-accessible website created (by volunteers) in a very similar way to Wikipedia. It provides a number of teaching and learning resources in the area of Materials Science. These have proved to be very popular with a wide range of users around the world. It has been in existence for about the same period as Wiki (ie just over 20 years) and, while its scope is clearly much more limited than Wiki, it does function in much the same way. Access levels are relatively high - of the order of 100,000 hits per day. In fact, there are many articles in Wiki that cite pages within DoITPoMS. Many such details, and an indication of the history of DoITPoMS, are included in the submitted article. In terms of independent sources concerning DoITPoMS, a handful were cited in the draft article - there simply aren't many published papers concerning it, and indeed there probably aren't so many about Wikipedia! It is true that the first one of these was a paper in which I'm the first author, but I'd be happy to remove this. I should emphasise that neither I, nor any of the many other contributors and organisers involved with DoITPoMS, benefit financially (or in any other way) from usage of the site. It is essentially a philanthropic exercise, in much the same way as Wiki. We also raise money for the running costs in the same way as Wiki (by soliciting small donations from users), although in fact the running costs for DoITPoMS are very small. These details also are included in the submitted article. I therefore feel that, while the response of Numberguy6 is entirely understandable, there is in fact scope for including an article about DoITPoMS that would serve a useful purpose, but would not infringe any of the guidelines concerning independence, vested interests, notability etc. As I say, I'd be happy to tweak the article in ways that are felt to be appropriate.

BillClyne (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BillClyne: your draft wasn't rejected, only declined; this means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the reasons for declining (unlike with rejection, which is the end of the road). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're involved with this initiative, you should declare your conflict of interest; I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up one misconception in your statement, there are hundreds of scholarly works written about Wikipedia, same for news articles and published books. Along with 9 billion pageviews in the month of July for english wikipedia alone. English Wikipedia has a well-sourced article about itself for those reasons, which has 200K pageviews a month.
All that is a long way of saying, verifiability and notability are core policies that have no exception for not-for-profits or noble causes. A quick look at Scholar and book searches shows there are likely sources that exist to write about the subject and establish notability, though they likely do not support the extensive unsourced material currently in the article. Slywriter (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:18, 31 August 2022 review of draft by Chunsus3095


Hi! I've submitted this draft for Earthworks Audio twice, and it has been rejected both times. The reason given is: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Before I edit and submit again, I would very much appreciate more specific details on what needs to be changed for the article to be accepted. Does it need more sources? Are the current sources not considered reliable? Thanks for your time!

Chunsus3095 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chunsus3095: the draft doesn't need more sources, it needs better sources. The ones currently cited are a mix of churnalism and product reviews. We need, instead, to see significant coverage of the company itself, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (as it says in the decline notice — did you read it, by any chance?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for the additional info! Chunsus3095 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chunsus3095 Did you click on the blue words in that decline notice that you quoted here? Those are links to specific information. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:23, 31 August 2022 review of submission by LionelModelTrains

I submitted this draft after I added more detail about the company, but I don't know too much about them and I am hoping that someone else can add additional information so that I can successfully publish this page. LionelModelTrains (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LionelModelTrains: sorry, but most site users won't even see your draft, so there's little chance they would be contributing to it, before it gets deleted (in c. 6 months' time). As the creator, the onus is largely on you to get the draft ready.
In any case, this has been rejected, and won't be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:49, 31 August 2022 review of submission by Beachflowering

This is for the page Adrian Fontes aka Adrian_Fontes. I'm really struggling with the edits needed to make this page publish-worthy. The feedback says there's lack of biographical notoriety, but I don't understand that - Fontes is the democratic nominee in the 2022 arizona secretary of state race, one of the most-watched races in the country, and there's an entire page dedicated to the race itself. and his republican opponent in the very same race qualifies for his own wikipedia page. And fontes was in charge of administering the 2020 elections in maricopa county, the election which was the subject of the nationally famous "arizona audit." I'm really really struggling to understand the lack of biographical notoriety. Beachflowering (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A previous article about him was deleted because county recorder was not a significant enough office to warrant an article. Merely being a candidate for office does not merit an article per WP:NPOLITICIAN. If he wins his election, he would merit an article. Otherwise, he would need to meet the broader notable person definition. It's also true that the draft reads as campaign literature, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources say about him. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:11, 31 August 2022 review of draft by Earendel28

When trying to add selected WikiProject tags, it says "An error occurred (unexpected-result) Please try again." When trying again, it either says the same thing or becomes rate limited.

Earendel28 (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Earendel28 not that you need to worry unduly about project tags at this stage, but if you tell me which projects you want to add, I can give it a try? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

08:33:38, 1 September 2022 review of draft by Rob torreglia

Good morning, I tried to publish a new entry on wikipedia but It was refused as it does not rely on "reliable sources". I cannot understand why, as I have included 31 sources and among these appear the BBC, the Italian State Police and articles from Italian newspapers including two of the most renowned, il Sole24ore and Corriere della Sera. What should I put in to be reliable? A testimony from the Pope? If so, can you please help me fix it so it gets published? Best regards

Rob torreglia (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob torreglia It may sound odd to hear, but you actually have too many sources. It is preferable to have fewer high quality sources rather than a large number of low quality sources. Most of the sources seem to just document the events he participated in and specific information about his life. To merit an article, there must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him summarized in this article. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob torreglia: that decline reason can mean two different things, either a) that the sources are not reliable, or b) that the draft is not adequately supported by sources. I think the latter (at least) applies here: there is quite a lot of content which is unsupported; several paragraphs are without a single citation, and eg. the 'Career' section has only one citation, which comes in fairly late, and doesn't seem to provide much of the information that precedes it. This raises two related questions: 1) how do we know that the information is true, and 2) where did that information come from? (And no, a testimony from the Pope wouldn't be of any use here, as it would be an unpublished primary source.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:19:39, 1 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rushistoriia

I am not sure why this article was deemed to not "sufficiently notable." Previous editors offered advice of how to show notability, but the most recent edit does not explain the reasons it was declined. Any advice on how to be more clear about the notability would be welcome.

Rushistoriia (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rushistoriia:: Your offline sources are missing critical bibliographical content needed to locate the source, and should be cited with a relevant cite template (I presume {{cite journal}}). In addition, the quoting here verges on excessive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are these different reasons not to accept it or that it needs revision, or are these considered things under "sufficiently notable"? Also, is there a different guide about "quoting verging on excessive" I am a bit confused since link goes to a discussion of copyrights. Rushistoriia (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rushistoriia: That's considered under "sufficiently notable", since without enough bibliographical information to look the source up in an archive or library you're essentially telling someone looking for the source to use a magnet to look for a bone needle in a barn crammed with hay. And that link is very much deliberate. Excessive quotes are considered to be copyright violations. If you're lifting huge swathes of text from quotes, you're better off paraphasing what is being said. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other pieces of bibliographic evidence that needs to be included aside from: author, journal name, journal volume and issue number, year and month of publication and page numbers? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paper's title DOI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:47, 1 September 2022 review of submission by Baloo1047

Baloo1047 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baloo1047: This page is both badly-sourced and blatantly promotional. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


September 2

00:52:01, 2 September 2022 review of draft by Lord Myric

Hi, I need some help figuring out how to add a box near the bottom of the page, with specific references. As an example, this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package has a box at the bottom with links to SMPTE standards. I'd like to figure out how to properly create and populate that feature.

Thanks in advance!

Lord Myric (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually a specific template, {{SMPTE standards}}, and not written bespoke for the page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
go to edit source copy the format edit you data 007Ranjeet (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:38:25, 2 September 2022 review of draft by GelKing

I have drafted an article, but been rejected for it reading like an advertisement, although I thought I was just stating the facts from the referenced articles. Could someone advise on how it sounded like advertising, so I can move forward with editing and resubmitting? Thanks GelKing (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GelKing: it hasn't been rejected, only declined; decline means you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons, reject means the end of the road.
It's expressions like "charity has aims to try to help people", "to offer a real alternative... without burdening them with disproportionate debt" and "scheme was so successful that it was featured" which are promotional. Your task here isn't to 'sell' the initiative, only to describe it. In other words, as much as you may think it's a positive thing, you mustn't put a positive spin on your description. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:23, 2 September 2022 review of submission by Elsasux

Elsasux (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is my draft that I processed tonight so I couldn't finish it, you say there are a lot of music sharing sites but since it's a musical artist... it's completely normal...

It is said that for an instrumentalist to be considered notable, the latter must make releases with a label, which is the case of ZephyrMusic (all his achievements are available on major recognized music platforms)

In addition, his YouTube channel is mentioned as OAC by YouTube and his Audiomack page mentions him as "Authenticated artist" therefore he is indeed a musical artist, who shares public content, he is recognized by major music platforms, otherwise it would not have the mentions described above, they are not distributed to anyone. It is affiliated with large distributors TuneCore and Amuse which are themselves recognized by the biggest music platforms.

If you look into his Instagram, you might get a lot of attention from notable accounts or artists. Knowing that his career started not even 2 months ago... it's a very good start

With all this I think he deserves his place on Wikipedia, of course we can't compare him to David Guetta or Ava Max but he is still an artist who has proven himself.

I worked a lot on the draft so that it was of the best possible quality (presentation, spelling, etc.), and I am aware of the eligibility criteria for an article, otherwise I would not have wasted my time. to recall this article.

Courtesy link Draft:ZephyrMusic, your draft has zero reliable independent sources and that is what we base articles on, there is no indication that they pass WP:NSINGER either.

08:43:46, 2 September 2022 review of draft by Lucynder


Lucynder (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Lucynder? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I would like to know why my article keeps getting rejected? I have gone through the right process ensured for an article to be published and provided adequate references, but it keeps getting rejected. I would like to know the reason for this.
Thank you. Lucynder (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, your draft has not been rejected, only declined. It may get rejected at some point, if you keep resubmitting it without addressing the decline reasons, but that's another matter. And those reasons are that the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability, and also they don't fully support the information provided. There has been very little, if any, improvement on either front since I first came across this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Would it be possible for the sources that are insufficient for the article to be underlined or cited in any way? Lucynder (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:49:02, 2 September 2022 review of submission by Alicia.Lizzo97

My article was rejected again and I would like to know what I can do to get it accepted. What exact references do I need? I have included all the articles I could find from the founder, but also from the record company. It's a small independent record company unfortunately, isn't that enough? Do I need more?


Alicia.Lizzo97 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Battl Victory Records -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If that's all the sources that you have, the company likely does not merit an article at this time. An article must not merely document the existence of the company and what it does, it 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. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alicia.Lizzo97: you need to cite sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria (by some margin, too, per WP:ORGCRIT). If you cannot find such sources, then by definition you cannot have the article published. Wikipedia doesn't exist for you to promote this or any other business; we exist to summarise information that has already been published in reliable, independent sources.
You also need to properly declare your conflict of interest, which you still haven't done despite being instructed to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:36, 2 September 2022 review of submission by Rushistoriia

Does this mean that because of two stylistic mistakes, the entire article will be rejected? Is there no way to fix these errors and resubmit it?

Rushistoriia (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rushistoriia: sorry, I'm not sure what 'stylistic mistakes' you mean. This draft was first declined, and then rejected, for lack of notability. (You can disregard the 25 September 2021 review.) If you think notability has been, or can be (eg. with new evidence that wasn't considered before), established, you can take this up with the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I was referring to the answer I got when I first asked this question that was not from the rejecting reviewer, but was from another person who said these were the reasons: @Rushistoriia:: Your offline sources are missing critical bibliographical content needed to locate the source, and should be cited with a relevant cite template (I presume {{cite journal}}). In addition, the quoting here verges on excessive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Are these different reasons not to accept it or that it needs revision, or are these considered things under "sufficiently notable"? Also, is there a different guide about "quoting verging on excessive" I am a bit confused since link goes to a discussion of copyrights. Rushistoriia (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
But maybe that discussion doesn't matter. I am somehow supposed to correspond to a different individual? How does one do that? The whole system is a bit unclear, honestly. Thanks for your help explaining it. Rushistoriia (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way it works is that once a draft is rejected, the only way forward from there is through the reviewer who rejected it. You need to go with a reasonable and reasoned case, mind, not just saying you're unhappy with rejection. In this case, it would include showing that notability does in fact exist, either per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rushistoriia, I would ask them to explain precisely how it fails WP:NSCHOLAR and why they think it would be impossible for the draft to meet NSCHOLAR. I think the rejection is premature and undeserved. Please come back here (or my talk page) if you do not get an answer or an unsatisfactory one. I would be inclined to let the community decide at AfD, rather than reject a borderline nscholar. Slywriter (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. Fixing the offline citations would definitely help the article; I see legitimately no reason why this should be rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

01:41:09, 3 September 2022 review of submission by LionelModelTrains

I added more citations and references to the page. LionelModelTrains (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LionelModelTrains, I suspect french sources would provide a notable story of the previous company. Without the history, this is just an article about a re-branding of Toy'R'Us France and doesn't appear to be much notable or encyclopedic about it. Slywriter (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I did the best I could. LionelModelTrains (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you could help me out by improving the draft that would be great. LionelModelTrains (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

06:31:01, 4 September 2022 review of draft by Ssffilms

I need to change the title to a wikipedia draft I just created. It's still in the approval phase. Can I still change it or is there a way to start over? Ssffilms (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssffilms: it doesn't matter, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be moved to the correct tite.
What you do need to do, however, is declare any conflict of interest you may have. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions.
Also, please note that your username may be against policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:48:04, 4 September 2022 review of submission by Aporesing60

I am representing Noah and have disclosed my COI. Subject has some new media coverage, I would like to add and resubmit but article says to ask for Advice and not to remove the message. Here are the 2 new media coverage that he got: [2] [3]

In addition, the last declining admin said his previous articles are paid, but according to Noah he has not paid anyone for coverage. Admins should not make claims like this without any evidence or details as to why they think the articles are paid. Good faith is supposed to be assumed when there is no such evidence. Please let me know if you can accept the article with these 2 additional articles. Aporesing60 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aporesing60: I wouldn't say either of the new sources is fully reliable, one being a student rag and the other a local sports site (blog?). But my view here doesn't matter, as it is the rejecting reviewer that you need to convince.
As for your paid editing remarks, I don't know what comments by the declining admin you're referring to, but the fact of the matter is that an article on this subject was earlier created by an editor who is a likely sockpuppet of an account that has been community-banned for undeclared paid editing and socking. Such evidence tends to refute AGF. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Pinging @Number_57 here, who stated all prior articles are paid. Can you please review the 2 new articles and explain your reasoning why all prior articles seem to be paid to you??
Also, as I have disclosed my COI, I have been hired by Noah to help. He previously hired other people that may not have disclosed paid editing. He had no knowledge that the people he hired were not abiding by Wiki policy, so he should not be punished for this.Aporesing60 (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aporesing60 This is a red herring: whether one or more of the previous attempts to create this article were UPE, or whether someone said they were, is not the issue here; only whether the latest draft can be accepted or not.
Nobody is being 'punished' for anything. (And I don't even know what it would mean to punish a draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing well it seems editor Number 57 declined it because it was done by a paid editor. That is against policy as you say. Aporesing60 (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aporesing60: no, the draft was rejected (and earlier declined) for lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The latest decline comment said "Paid-for article on a semi-pro footballer. This is not what Wikipedia is for."
Isn't this saying that because it is a paid for article and he is semi-pro it is being declined???
First: being a paid for article is not a reason for decline.
2nd: Being semi-pro is not a valid reason for decline. He has 28 in-depth citations, if you add the 2 new ones.
But regardless, why don't we put this to a vote now, considering there are now 2 more citations. So in its existing format, would you say he is notable now? Aporesing60 (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Number_57 Oh wait are you saying "Paid for article" meaning it was done by paid editor? If so that should not be a reason for decline as I have disclosed my COI. If this was the issue, then it is resolved now. So please review again and if you still see issue, let me know. He clearly has a lot of coverage and meets GNG. There are footballers here on WIki with much less coverage. Aporesing60 (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"There are footballers here on WIki with much less coverage" see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheroadislongSorry just trying to point out the truth, but I know it cant be used as an argument. Would you mind to please review the article in current state and with the 2 new citations. Aporesing60 (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that the subject is simply not notable. He is a semi-professional footballer who has played in very minor leagues. Number 57 15:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being Semi-pro is not a reason for not being notable. There used to be WP:NFOOTY, which said if you are professional with at least two pro games you qualify, but that has been retired. The only requirement for footballers is to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. He has 26 citations in the article plus 2 new ones I provided above, most of which are in-depth and non are paid. In Addition WP:basic says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." SO with all due respect your reasoning does not make sense. You need to go based on policy. "Simply not notable because his is semi-pro" is not a valid reason. Aporesing60 (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:27:40, 4 September 2022 review of submission by ChadeGall23

ChadeGall23 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @ChadeGall23? This draft has been rejected (by two reviewers independently, as it happens!) and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== 09:48:40, 4 September 2022 review of submission by ChadeGall23 ==done

ChadeGall23 (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable references; all the sources are user-generated.
Before editing further, please respond to the COI query on your talk page. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrite the article with reliable references. ChadeGall23 (talk) 10:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChadeGall23 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. You haven't shown that this person meets the definition of a notable musician. Don't ask us for help if you intend to move it yourself. I've moved it back, but if you insist on placing it in the encyclopedia yourself, you run the risk of it being proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a conflict of interest, you should not move it yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:25, 4 September 2022 review of submission by SaswatNTHacked

SaswatNTHacked (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @SaswatNTHacked? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:46:52, 4 September 2022 review of submission by Oltrepier

Hello! This is my first message on the Help desk, so I hope I've done everything correctly. Thank you for reaching out to me in regards to my draft: I shouldn't have pressed the "Submit" button immediately in the first place, but when I realized it, it was too late...

In respect of the criteria for footballers, I'll just have to wait for the player's first professional appearances (he's going to play in the Italian second tier) before submitting the draft again, won't I?

Oltrepier (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Unfotunately WP:NFOOTY is now deprecated and waiting for their first appearance will not move the needle notability-wise. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Understood. I'll keep taking care of the draft, anyway, should any major changes occur.
Are the sources I included appropriate enough, though?
~~~~ Oltrepier (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:38, 4 September 2022 review of submission by DecafPotato

Sorry if this is a redundant question, but I geniunely can not figure out how to submit the Bidoof draft for review DecafPotato (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DecafPotato I will shortly add the submission information. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! DecafPotato (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

Request on 01:57:34, 5 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by GameloverCH

I have created an article referring to the following article. What am I missing? I would like to know specifically the difference between these two articles why the following is accepted and not mine. I appreciate your support. Kim Beom-soo (businessman) GameloverCH (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GameloverCH There is no difference. Please read other stuff exists. 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. We can only address what we know about. I've marked the article you mention as problematic- thanks for pointing it out, we can use the help. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. Otherwise you run the risk of choosing one that is problematic- as you have done here. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:01:34, 5 September 2022 review of submission by FatCatFreddy

What would constitute this individual being notable enough to be included in the same Wikipedia that her collaberators are included in? She is one of the collaborators of noted streamers such as ChilledChaos, ZeRoyalViking, SeaNanners, etc. Just trying to understand what the criteria are if I am going to be entering articles or making edits... FatCatFreddy (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBIO covers it in detail, but the short version is that reliable sources independent of the subject must cover them in detail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:24:53, 5 September 2022 review of submission by SpyridisioAnnis

Because The Four Reasons You Are Rejecting The Article For Are Not True, Draft:Zone Of Oceania Needs Re-Review, And Crazy Capitalization Is Actually Having Just 1 Capital In Sentences. SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpyridisioAnnis Please stop wasting our time with this nonsense. It was rejected- correctly- and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:30, 5 September 2022 review of submission by Brian Henningsen

Hi, I see that you have decided to decline my offer to make a new source about this famous danish entrepreneur. I think this is very unfortunate since there is little to no knowledge on this particular person. I hope you reconsider and if you do I promise the article will be up to par with other Wikipedia material Brian Henningsen (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Marcus Skov Laursen is not in English so would not be accepted even if they were notable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brian Henningsen: Try writing this on the Danish Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:16:07, 5 September 2022 review of submission by JWilson021

Olson was featured in an Alabama news paper/secondary news source about his new release. Advice for other citations needed for this draft. I appreciate it!

JWilson021 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JWilson021 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Reviews must remain on your draft. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


September 6

Request on 00:49:20, 6 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by DisabledEditor


I created Draft:Andrew Straw and this article about a living and notable civil rights attorney was rejected with comments several times, and each time I made changes to improve the article. It went from being a Start-Class article to FA-Class according to other editors and it only took about a month. Now, someone with a clear axe to grind has put a total stop on the article without anyone else being involved and made a bunch of hostile comments that do not help anything. I have put a great deal of effort into researching the citations and making sure that the facts presented are true and accurate and supported by citations. Just about every sentence has a citation supporting it, over 100 in total. The editor justified the stop with vague and unsupported attacks and I think there should be a committee reviewing this article, given the FA-Class it has reached according to others. One person's sour attitude should not be allowed to destroy this article. I simply ask a neutral committee of editors to decide this, not one person coming in after over a month of work with the attitude of a vandal, someone who never made any edit at all. DisabledEditor (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DisabledEditor (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DisabledEditor I realize you've put a lot of time into this. DGG has been an editor here since 2006, and instead of calling him a vandal you might consider his experience and knowledge and the possibility he might be correct. In looking at your work, I can't disagree with him. Mr. Straw is pretty much the only topic you have edited about(or things related to him). Do you have an association with him? 331dot (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:35:10, 6 September 2022 review of submission by SayyedAbidShah

SayyedAbidShah (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SayyedAbidShah You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:57:04, 6 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by شاہ فہد

Hello, i need help with submition as I am new on Wikipedia I don't have much knowledge to improve my submission.


شاہ فہد (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:DJ Youngmoon (presumably?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@شاہ فہد This draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. What is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually one of admin asked me to improved it
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
if this issue was not resolved it will be deleted within 6 months شاہ فہد (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, this draft has been submitted and is awaiting review.
However, I did notice on your talk page that you've said you were asked by the article subject to write this. This is a clear conflict of interest and possible paid editing, which you must disclose properly. I've posted a message on your talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:29:08, 6 September 2022 review of draft by SmartScience

Hello. I started drafting an article, and it was submitted by mistake by a toddler pushing keys on my keyboard. I want to 1.) find the original rejected draft; 2.) erase the new draft that I placed for submission; 3.) place the corrected material in the old rejected draft; 4.) submit the completed original draft for review and publishing. Please, help. Thank you.

SmartScience (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1108792167"