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 CheckifyPro (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 8 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


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 Excessive quoting can violate copyright. The explanation of copyright should talk about quoting. I hope this helps explain what you were confused about. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:42, 8 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: [1] [2]

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]
@Aporesing60 Semi-pro and pro are different. Also, articles don't get voted on for notability; AfC reviewers decide that. Good luck in any case. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:47, 8 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]
That's precisely the kind of fly by night "drive by shooting" comment I am complaining about. What difference does it make how long he's been an editor if he is wrong? How many times do I have to state that I am a member of Mr. Straw's Disability Party, and there are literally thousands of us? Democrats can write about Biden, yes? Republicans about Trump? How about stopping the vandalism and ad hominem attacks and stick to the article? FA-Class, according to some editors here. Why are the sour attitudes allowed to have absolute control with an iron hand? Look at the talk page of the article. I linked to where this article is rated. I didn't rate it. Others did. DisabledEditor (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:AfC_sorting DisabledEditor (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's where it was rated FA after steadily improving from Start, then C, B, GA, and finally FA Class. Now with the "stop" and ad hominem attacks, it does not appear there at all. DisabledEditor (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about if you explain how this article is significantly different from the other "living person" civil rights attorney articles? I listed them so people like you would not be able to justify vandalism. There are several precedents for an article just like this. DisabledEditor (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does WIkipedia discriminate based on disability? Is that the issue here? DisabledEditor (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DisabledEditor I haven't examined every single comment you have ever made, so pardon me if I missed one. Please note that assume good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and referring to DGG as a vandal and me as having a "sour attitude" are not in keeping with this principle. I get that it is frustrating to have something you spent hours on criticized and have things happen to it that you may not understand. This doesn't mean that we are acting in bad faith. We want to help you. If you are accusing someone of having "a clear axe to grind" or "ad hominem attacks" or "vandalism"(note that word has a very specific meaning here, an attempt to deface an article or page) you should have hard evidence to support such claims; if not, I suggest that you withdraw them.
You seem much closer to Mr. Straw than being a member of a political party- if you aren't, okay. Perhaps someone else seeing this section will feel differently, but again, I can't say I disagree with DGG. Please see other stuff exists; it could be that these other articles that you have seen are also inappropriate, and simply unaddressed by us volunteers- for this reason, each article or draft is judged on its own merits. Not every member of a field will merit an article. Good day.
If you are disabled, that has no bearing on this matter. I wouldn't know with any certainty if you are or not. If you say you are, I believe you. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy note for others reading this thread. DGG rejected the article and suggested the editor not edit it anymore. In my opinion, there's too much intricate, unsourced and unnecessary detail. It would require a drastic revision WP:TNT to be approved, and only if the info is limited to what the sources say. It would also need to be more chronological. Lastly, there's no rating now, but I'm unclear how an unaccepted draft is getting a FA quality rating, unless someone changed the parameter incorrectly. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding because you don't like the content when you never offered even a single edit is pretty disingenuous on its face. This article is better sourced than those for other attorneys. Look at the citations. Almost all of them are TV, radio, newspapers, journal articles, academic works. I would call the attacks "niggling" and not the major errors that you say. I addressed each and every refusal with edits and made the article better in response. Now there is the big STOP because I guess getting better and better is not good enough. You sour types just wish the article had never been presented at all. I don't have to make up your attitudes. You quite conveniently reveal it. Thanks. Now, with the BIG STOP, I can't do anything else and the article is dead in the water unless someone else steps in. I hope they do because this is a good article. Maybe not one of the best on Wikipedia, which has some extremely long articles, but good, anyway. DisabledEditor (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ok, how hard is it to understand that someone called DisabledEditor would be disabled? DisabledEditor (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is more than this. The draft is either a personal autobiography or written in the style of a personal autobiography, giving the minor details of all of his uniformly unsuccessful campaigns and many attempts to get legal attention to his law suits. It doesn't really matter who wrote it, , though I note the persistent refusal of the editor to state what coi he might have besides being a member of the party. I've removed 100s of similar attempts at vanity articles for many years, but I have yet to be called a vandal except by an insistent coi editor--sometimes by a paid one trying desperately to earn his money, sometimes by someone feeding their self importance.
The FA and other ratings of the article were given by ORES, the AI software at WP:AfC sorting. ORES is sometimes helpful, but but perhaps it needs a little more attention. I'm glad to know no human editor was involved. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why glad? Because you are poltically opposed to the content and the subject matter. Your glad emotion shows your bias, right? DisabledEditor (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there is a conflict of interest is made clear in this section of the draft creator's user talk page. I'm not sure why DisabledEditor is so reluctant to disclose it when asked about it directly. --bonadea contributions talk 07:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought anonymity was fundamental on Wikipedia. Otherwise, why not make everyone use their own names as usernames? My not revealing my actual name is a right and privilege encouraged by Wikipedia and if you are such an advanced editor, you would already know this without me having to remind you. All you are doing is baiting with ad hominems. Wikipedia:Anonymity There are many reasons why someone involved in politics or law would want to keep anonymity. You may wish that there was some conflict because you are against the content, but your wishful thinking does not make it so. DisabledEditor (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:DROPTHESTICK the draft is entirely promotional and was correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DisabledEditor No one is asking for your name. They are asking if you volunteer (or intern) for the party; volunteer for the candidate; or work for either one. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article hadn't been rejected, I'd have pblocked. DE is trending perilously close to an indef for clearly being here only to promote Shaw and doing so disruptively. Star Mississippi 18:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi its not just the draft. See also this and this. S0091 (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @S0091. @Ad Orientem beat me to it, but I certainly endorse the block. Star Mississippi 20:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and for the record, I'd recuse based on this, but I think 72 hours is generous for blatant NONAZIS nonsense. Star Mississippi 20:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi Didn't even know this discussion was going on. They were reported at AIV for spamming and while I won't say they are NOTHERE, I concluded that their editing had become disruptive enough that they, and the community, needed a break. If this resumes once the block expires, an indef would be the most likely next step. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 7 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]

@SmartScience: one copy is in the sandbox per your link above; the other at Draft:Oko Drammeh. Decide which one you want to keep, and edit it so all the content you want is there. Then either blank the other draft, or place the {{Db-author}} tag on it; it will be deleted in due course (assuming you're the only editor who has made substantive edits in it). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:16:11, 6 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Tony.hynes

I am trying to get a corporate page published. I have modelled it on a number of companies in the same industry, citing the same or similar sources. Examples of other pages VAST Data -AND- Pure Storage The company has been covered in numerous trade publications and is based on a technology--created by the founders--that is already listed on Wikipedia. XtreemFS I had not added that I have a commercial interest--but have put that in now. I am a vendor working with the company. I have been at pains to make the submission objective. Any additional advice would be much appreciated.


Tony.hynes (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony.hynes I have made your links standard internal links, the whole url is unnecessary; simply place the target page name in double brackets, as I did here. You did disclose, but used a template meant for article talk pages. I have posted instructions on your user talk page for how to disclose on your user page.
You have several misunderstandings here. Wikipedia does not have "company pages", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles about companies, typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic. Those articles 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. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses were mere existence warrants inclusion. The notability criteria must be met in order for a topic to be included.
"Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of the activities of the company and what it does, and goes into detail about the significance and influence of the company. Sources must be independent, meaning they should not be press releases, staff interviews, brief mentions, product descriptions announcements of routine business activities, or other primary sources.
Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist; see other stuff exists. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate; at least one of your examples has similar problems. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, as those have been thoroughly edited and vetted by the community- something which does not happen to every article. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the pointers and guidance. Understood that this is not a forum for "corporate pages" I misrepresented that. I will review all articles in accordance with 'classified as good articles' and ensure the article about Quobyte focuses on why it is notable.Tony.hynes (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony.hynes: In addition to the excellent advice above, the draft's promotional tone is more suitable for a brochure than an encyclopedia. It will never be approved if you don't adapt a more encyclopedic tone. You'll need to address fluffy phrases like Quobyte specializes in turning commodity servers into a unified, high-performance, scalable software storage system that can efficiently manage the rapidly evolving complexity of data storage infrastructure and Whether it’s in the cloud, on-prem or hybrid, Quobyte’s POSIX compatible, distributed parallel file system empowers users to build a truly flexible software-based storage infrastructure. Also, rethink your content organization. It's a company article, yet the "Features" section isn't about the company at all. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great advise. I am going to rework the article to address. Tony.hynes (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:16, 6 September 2022 review of submission by Jamesmclennan69

Hi Wikipedia,

Recently, I spent a day creating a page for my favourite comedian, Luke Kidgell. Luke is quite a prominent stand-up comic here in Australia, and has a significant audience. It was declined on grounds of Luke not showing to have "significant coverage". A simple 'google' search for Luke Kidgell will disprove this claim. Please review this. Jamesmclennan69 (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesmclennan69 It's not up to others to prove your claims, you must do so. The sources you have provided do not seem to have significant coverage of Mr. Kidgell, that goes into his importance and significance. It isn't enough to merely document his existence and work. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

03:30:04, 7 September 2022 review of draft by Beanpods777

It is breaking News they found womens body remains and is currently active. Thoughts??? Beanpods777 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abston won't provide details of where the body is. Beanpods777 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The killing of the victim maybe should have a page or possibly tye in Memphis abductions? Thanks Beanpods777 (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beanpods777 Please review WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPCRIME. You cannot name someone as having committed crimes unless that person has been convicted in a court of law of those crimes. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beanpods777 Wikipedia is not the news. Hmm, that shortcut is taking me to the wrong section of that page. There is a section saying that WP is not a newspaper... 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:37, 7 September 2022 review of submission by 45.123.219.70

45.123.219.70 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:46:46, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Dn patelll

Dn patelll (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Dn patelll? Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered. Perhaps try one of the many social media sites instead? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:19, 7 September 2022 review of submission by 45.123.219.70

Dn patelll You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This is not social media where people tell the world about themselves, this is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:59, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Lucynder

Hello, I just realized that my article has been rejected. I do not know why it is, having gone through the process of sourcing and implementing references available for the film. I would like a re-review and hopefully a guide to put me through in referencing for the article. Also would like to know why exactly it has been rejected and is not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hoping for a positive response to this.

Thank you. Lucynder (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucynder: as I said already a few days ago, eventually the draft may be rejected if you keep resubmitting it without addressing the reasons why it was declined. I think that is the case here — with seven (!) previous declines, and very little if any progress in demonstrating notability, eventually the call has to be made whether this has any realistic prospect of being acceptable. We have another 2,300+ other drafts to review also, and cannot allocate indefinite time and resource to a draft that isn't making appropriate progress. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:02, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Surm31

Hello, this submission was declined due to a lack of significant coverage. The sources (except for one) are about the subject and are not passing mentions of the same. Should I be adding more sources? Or different sources? I am a little unsure of what to do next since I don't want the submission to be rejected. Any input would be helpful. Thank you in advance! Surm31 (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Surm31: my opinion — and it is only that — is that with three sources, only two of which (as you say) provide significant coverage of the subject, this draft's notability is borderline; adding even just one more source that fully meets the WP:GNG standard would probably be enough to get this over the finish line. (That said, you may wish to ask the declining reviewer what specifically they had in mind when they declined this.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! @DoubleGrazing Surm31 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:47, 7 September 2022 review of submission by Waterbucket123

I was told to via the wiki help chat to re do the citations, and link references correctly. I believe that has been done and I would like this page to be looked at and approved please!

Thank you. Waterbucket123 (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Waterbucket123: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
You have only one usable source, and one source in and of itself cannot justify an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

02:37:21, 8 September 2022 review of submission by Nfutvol

The article is sourced with in such a manner that includes significant coverage by multiple, independent sources including major media outlets, government records and documents, published books, et cetera. Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

The organization and individuals associated with it have participated in government-led efforts to include participation in foreign aid programs, as well as lobbying and as witnesses before the US Congress. This is in addition to its notable role in rural electrification in the United States. As far as coverage, it has been the subject of reports in both the New York Times and the Tennessean, two major newspapers, as well as smaller newspapers across the United States, thereby fulfilling the second standard. Based on all of this, which is well beyond the guidelines in WP:N, I am unsure why this is being denied on the grounds of notability. nf utvol (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfutvol: firstly, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered; if you wish to appeal that, you need to take the matter up with the rejecting reviewer.
That said, the sources cited are mostly primary, with some close to the subject, and therefore do not contribute to notability. The few secondary sources, including the NYT piece, make only passing mentions of Meriwether. (Also just to point out that "having participated in government-led efforts", etc., is not how notability in the Wikipedia context is defined.)
For clarity, I am not arguing that the draft should have been rejected as opposed to merely declined, but I am saying that notability has not been established, in the way that you seem to believe. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:34, 8 September 2022 review of submission by 007Ranjeet

007Ranjeet (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @007Ranjeet? Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what are mistake in that article correct those 007Ranjeet (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@007Ranjeet: the draft has various problems, but the biggest one, and the reason why it was declined each time and eventually rejected, is complete lack of notability. To resolve this, you need to cite multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the college, per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:42:55, 8 September 2022 review of draft by Kwokng


Hi there, we (two contributors) got a message that the page we submitted should be merged as a section into another page. However, we are not sure this would be a correct thing to do as, as the page that was suggested is only one part of what this page is trying to explain. In other words, a part of 'Kinesiology' is 'Adapted Physical Activity', but not all of 'Adapted Physical Activity' is kinesiology. For example, Parasport is not part of kinesiology. Rehabilitation is not part of kinesiology, and Parasport/Disability sport and rehabilitation are integral parts of Adapted Physical Activity, in addition to the sport science/kinesiology aspect of the term/field. Therefore, we disagree with the reviewer - Fakescientist8000. In the previous round, we included substantial references (from academic sources, that are reliable, and secondary sources that are independent of the subject) to demonstrate the need for the page and its uniqueness. We have not received feedback concerning this. We plan to add more references such editing content from books such as "Sports Science Handbook", "Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine", and the "Dictionary of the Sport and Exercise Sciences", all of which of specific entries to Adapted Physical Activity. See image of cover of the Sport Science Handbook

Cover of Sport Science Handbook
Cover of Sport Science Handbook

As such, we would like help to move this forward in preparation to make the page go live.

Kwokng (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:25, 8 September 2022 review of submission by CheckifyPro

This article provide only for information not promotion CheckifyPro (talk) 11:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CheckifyPro This article is pure promo, was correctly rejected, and should be deleted soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:13, 8 September 2022 review of submission by CheckifyPro

Sorry but we don't need promo. This article was created only for approve our twitter account


CheckifyPro (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1109171148"