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 Wikidibo (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 7 October 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


September 29

01:39:01, 29 September 2022 review of submission by Hyccc20

Hi, I requested a review on the draft of the article few weeks back, and have made some changes to the draft since then. Would it be possible to guide me with what to do next? Thank you. Hyccc20 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyccc20 A draft being rejected typically means resubmission is not possible. If something has dramatically changed since the rejection, such as new information that the reviewer did not consider, please first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:31, 29 September 2022 review of submission by Ptharshbhardwaj


Ptharshbhardwaj (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ptharshbhardwaj You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the username policy. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:58:10, 29 September 2022 review of draft by David Zilpimiani


David Zilpimiani (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am an employee of the company founded by David Zilpimiani. and I used the name David Zilpimiani as username. How can I prove that he is not writing about himself? David Zilpimiani (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Inga Bajelidze[reply]

David Zilpimiani The best way would be to change your username, which may be done at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Either way, your username needs to be changed as you are not Mr. Zilpimiani and a name cannot be that of a company. Once you change it, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that clear answer. I requested to name it the company name. After it will be changed I will disclose that I am paid to contribute. Will it be right? David Zilpimiani (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David Zilpimiani: The name cannot simply be the name of a company. That implies a shared account, in violation of our user name guidelines. You can make it "David Z at Stereo Plus", or better yet, pick something generic that you won't have to abandon when you change jobs. We hope you'll "catch the bug" and edit and contribute in other ways. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:40, 29 September 2022 review of draft by 2A05:4F46:6B:C900:10BA:E32A:C079:9B4C


2A05:4F46:6B:C900:10BA:E32A:C079:9B4C (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Daer, what do you think. How can I improve my article about a Croatian historian Hrvoje Spajic. Heartly, R

Please just read the comments left by reviewers. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You asked and received an answer on 26 September. Was that not enough? David10244 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:47:38, 29 September 2022 review of submission by JoeOstholtoff


JoeOstholtoff (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My article has been rejected because I do not show significant coverage. I have used his own website, the sponsors website, and the racing circuit to talk about him. What other sources would be helpful?

It would appear that you do not pass WP:NMOTORSPORT and your draft has little in the way of independent sources, your own website is useless for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JoeOstholtoff If you are not Joe Ostholtoff, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone says about themselves, or what their associates say about them. An article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. As it seems Joe does not, the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JoeOstholtoff This information is not always clear to newcomers, but Wikipedia's volunteers takes great pains to not have the site turn into an indiscriminate collection of information. The entries have to meet a notability standard. Earlier entries may not meet this standard, but that means they were written before standards were properly enforced. We use information published about the subject in independent, reliable third party sources to determine whether a subject meets the notability threshold. Anything written by the subject, or written by those in his/her employ, is unsuitable. For example, press releases are frequently cited in draft articles by inexperienced editors, but anyone can write and issue a press release. Having one doesn't make someone notable. It is early in your career and you have not gotten enough press coverage yet. Keep doing what you do well, and hopefully one day that will change. Lastly, another guideline we require people to follow is to not write about themselves, or at the very least, to disclose that they are writing about themselves, not so they can be hassled, but to make it easier for independent editors to correct potential problems with tone, style and sourcing. If you want to edit a draft about yourself in the future, if you get more media coverage, please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide to make the required disclosure on your user page. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:20, 29 September 2022 review of submission by Billatek

Missed adding to country. Now i added location and country. Billatek (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billatek The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses where mere existence warrants a mention. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called "notability"; see the definition of a notable business. Any article about this business must not merely document its existence, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first article and I created an article for decorpot. The company is in a good performance and I saw many articles in Daily newspaper, So I planned to set up the company in Wikipedia. Billatek (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billatek Please do not create a new section of this page for every comment you make- just edit this existing section for any follow up comments. This may be easier to do in full desktop mode, even in a browser on a mobile device. Please review the definition of a notable business, and if the news stories you have seen are more than just brief mentions, staff interviews, or announcements of routine business activities, please approach the last reviewer to appeal. Please note that logos cannot be in drafts due to copyright issues- if an article is accepted about the business, the logo may be added then. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:27, 29 September 2022 review of submission by Jcdemier

I received this message: This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. The sources cited are Reuters, Car & Driver, Automotive News, El Confidencial and El Mundo (Spain), in my opinion, they are pretty well-established media outlets or news agencies, could you help me to understand what type of sources would be considered "Reliable" in this matter.

Should I avoid the company's official source of information? Could be a problem that the sources are in Spanish and English? Should I not use the person profile LinkedIn profile?

Thanks

Jcdemier (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company's official sources of info are not independent and Linkedin.com is not independent or reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jcdemier Fixed the link for you- it shouldn't be a url. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself or its own personnel. That sources are in Spanish is not a problem. Social media profiles contribute nothing to notability. The problem is not the news outlets themselves, but the content of their stories- which seem to be mostly documentation of this man's routine activities as a businessperson(such as resigning or being given additional responsibilities). A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize "significant coverage" of the person- coverage that goes beyond just telling us what they do, and goes into detail as to why it is significant/important/influential. What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Theroadislong @331dot
I consider this 3 the most important/influential sources:
Automotive News, Automotive industry information leader in US.
Car & Driver best source on products and car reviews in US.
El Mundo, top spanish newspaper Jcdemier (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant; what are your three best specific citations?(not the outlets themselves, what they published) 331dot (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I like Automotive News Europe (1), El Confidencial (in Spanish), Reuters, and Automotive News Europe (2). I made a few improvements to help show notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:29:47, 29 September 2022 review of submission by Ciao bill

Why are the sources in my submission not reliable? What portions of the article are unsourced? How do my sources differ from those in this article Becky_Duval_Reese? How do my sources differ from those in this article Gerald_Nordland Ciao bill (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:40:19, 29 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 2600:4040:5F93:5800:D8CE:704A:39CE:A3D4


I own markmincolla.com so nothing is being copyrighted.  Can you please approve this message?


2600:4040:5F93:5800:D8CE:704A:39CE:A3D4 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Berne literally everything is copyrighted the instant it is published. Unless the copyright licence is explicitly stated (as is the case with Wikipedia), it's all-rights-reserved. We can't accept material copied from all-rights-reserved sources because it's mutually-exclusive/fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia's content licence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a copyright statement at the bottom of the home page, so the information IS copyrighted. We don't know that your IP address (2600:4040...) is used by the same person who owns the copyright to the material on the page, but that wouldn't matter anyway, as DoubleGrazing and Jeske say. David10244 (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 30

04:12:55, 30 September 2022 review of submission by JocastaFeinberg

Akevsharma informed me that my page on Jeff Weinstein lacked reliable sources. I'm unsure why this is the case, since I cited everything in the page, and my sources are all reliable. Could you tell me why this page was declined? I'd like to fix these issues before I resubmit the page for review. I've already fixed a broken link to a source and swapped a source that might be unreliable in Wikipedia's eyes (Muckrack.com) with one that Wikipedia might find more valid (a book, published by Pushcart Press.) Thank you for responding to me, so we can get this sorted out. All my best! JocastaFeinberg (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JocastaFeinberg: it's not quite the case that you "cited everything", the DOB is not referenced (a detail, I know, but an important one). However, I don't think that's why this was declined. My guess is that it was because the referencing relies heavily on the first two sources, and it's not clear how reliable the first one (LGBT History Month) is, while the second (San Diego Reader) is an interview of Weinstein; there are also some other primary sources included. Beyond that, you might have to ask the declining reviewer directly what they had in mind. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advice. I just edited the text and cited Weinstein's date of birth. The LGBT History Month source is quite reliable; Equality Forum, which founded LGBT History Month, is a significant civil rights organization, and the LGBT History Month initiative is a trove of LGBT history, co-run by an academic (Sharon Ullman)—not sure what makes this organization disreputable. The San Diego Reader piece is not an interview, it's a profile, written by another author for a major alternative weekly newspaper. Much of the information I attributed to the LGBT History Month piece and the San Diego Reader piece can also be found in other publications that I cite later in the text. I've reached out to the declining reviewer, and I'm waiting to hear back. JocastaFeinberg (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JocastaFeinberg The organization is not being called "disreputable". Reliable sources are explained at Reliable Sources (click here) and that word has a specific meaning within Wikipedia. I'm sure the organization is reputable! Good luck. David10244 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response @David10244, I appreciate it! I've read the Reliable Sources page and see nothing that would cause me to question the reliability of the LGBT History Month as a source. Can you let me know specifically why this source might give Wikipedia editors trouble? I think my page is more thoroughly sourced now and I would like to submit it for review again. (Though I haven't heard back from the editor who initially declined it, @Akevsharma— it would be extremely helpful for me to hear from this editor, so that I may address the editor's concerns directly.) I'm also concerned that, if the article is declined, it might be deleted. Is this a possibility? Thanks again! JocastaFeinberg (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JocastaFeinberg I will try to answer your first question a bit later, but if declined, the draft will stay for 6 months. If it's edited, the 6 month timer starts over. David10244 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page was accepted this morning! Thank you again for your help, @David10244 and @DoubleGrazing. JocastaFeinberg (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JocastaFeinberg Great! David10244 (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:46, 30 September 2022 review of submission by 117.217.38.150


117.217.38.150 (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:44, 30 September 2022 review of draft by Apexuious


Apexuious (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted your draft for review yet? It has no sources so will be declined if you do. Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:13, 30 September 2022 review of submission by SyedAnasTanweer


SyedAnasTanweer (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SyedAnasTanweer: you don't ask a question, but you don't need to submit your user page to AfC review (and therefore you're free to remove the rejection template). You do, however, need to ensure that the page complies with the guidelines at WP:UP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:03, 30 September 2022 review of submission by Dramalpc


Dramalpc (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Dramalpc? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


October 1

00:48:52, 1 October 2022 review of submission by Lucas Henrich


Lucas Henrich (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Henrich: you haven't asked a question, but the draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:43:20, 1 October 2022 review of submission by SpyridisioAnnis

This Article Is Important For Wikipedia SpyridisioAnnis (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SpyridisioAnnis: We do not accept original research, completely unreferenced articles, or articles with every single word capitalised. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:50:14, 1 October 2022 review of submission by Cadetmahiur


Cadetmahiur (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not submitted your draft for review, but since it has no sources and the topic is not notable it would be declined if you did, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:54:05, 1 October 2022 review of submission by Annaiya2022


Annaiya2022 (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Annaiya2022: you haven't asked a question, but your draft was rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:49, 1 October 2022 review of submission by Kuku9090

the person  is National spokesperson of the Indian youth congress  and socialworker  so this profile  updte on wikipedia because people touch the person. Is a politician  the congress party.

Kuku9090 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuku9090: that's not a question — did you have one in mind? In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. (FYI, for politicians to be notable per WP:NPOL, they must have been elected to a national or state legislature. There is no evidence that's the case here.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:47, 1 October 2022 review of submission by Connoristhebest


Connoristhebest (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say "my name is Connor, i used to Vandalize Wikipedia by saying that Jacqueline Jossa had died, and i was blocked several times for it" that means you are evading your block? Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Connoristhebest You submitted that sandbox, to become an article? It won't be an article, sorry. David10244 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


October 2

03:06:40, 28 September 2022 review of draft by PDmeds9


Hello. I want to try working on this page again. I don't know how to proceed. Can I get my page back up and rework it to make it better or should I make a brand new page? I'm unsure if I did this right on this review for submission page. PDmeds9 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PDmeds9 The text that was deleted was a clear advertisement, so you would be better off starting over. A Wikipedia article should not just document the existence of something and tell what it does; it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling what the topic does and goes into detail about its significance or influence. Interviews, press releases, announcements of routine activities, and the like do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:00, 2 October 2022 review of submission by 4EVER1 FAMILY


4EVER1 FAMILY (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:02, 2 October 2022 review of submission by U Thein Naing Ohn


U Thein Naing Ohn (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:04:32, 2 October 2022 review of submission by Lizeen

Requesting a Wikipedia page for Nia Orea. She is notable music producer, have tried to create a page before but it was declined. The sources are credible and I’m looking for help in recreating a new updated page. Thanks

Lizeen (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search (string: "nia orea") gives us pretty much nothing we can use, so the answer is a hard no. Coverage in third-party news/scholarly sources, not existence, are the criteria we use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:49, 2 October 2022 review of submission by GregorSun


GregorSun (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I write a technical article about the third CAN XL protocol. The predecessor are CAN bus and CAN FD. I have several resources in the articel from different magazine, organisations, manufactures. What else can I do to have reliable resources?

Why are you using bulleted lists of improvements rather than writing prose discussing them and citing reviews or analyses of the protocol? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Pfnor

As I look through Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Visual arts I'm always happy to see something that doesn't seem an attempt (whether subtle or blatant) to aggrandize a current artist, gallery or similar. (Also, I'm mildly attracted by names such as Pfnor.) Thus it was that I converted this draft to this article. But now that I've done the deed, I'm distinctly underwhelmed by Pfnor's claim to notability. I'm not sure if draftification would be legitimate; but if anyone would care to draftify, this would raise no objection from me. -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: with my NPP hat on, draftifying is (so I've been told!) just kicking the can further down the road. :) Besides, searching with both the German and French rendering of his name produces results which suggest this person probably is notable, even if online sources may be difficult to find. With that in mind, I'll go and mark this as reviewed — if some less generous person later decides to unmark it and gives me grief over this, so be it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added that their work is in the British Museum so they pass WP:NARTIST easily, though the museum notes they are female? Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good comments, DoubleGrazing 'n' Theroadislong. Thank you both; I shall sleep soundly tonight. -- Hoary (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

03:45:41, 3 October 2022 review of submission by M Raisfath

I create those page to redirect users into intended article: Horseshoe magnet. Because horseshoe magnet also known as 'U-shaped magnet', because it's U-shape (or U-shaped). And if those page was declined, rejected, and/or deleted, please tell me more details as soon as possible. Thanks!
M Raisfath (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M Raisfath Please follow the instructions the reviewer left on your draft to request the creation of a redirect. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:49:10, 3 October 2022 review of draft by Writerfromindia


Hi. I just wanted to check how long I had to edit the article and resubmit before it's deleted. Looking forward to your response.

Writerfromindia (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writerfromindia There is no deadline for resubmission as long as you are actively working on it. Drafts are automatically marked for deletion after six months of inactivity. Be aware that anything on the organization's website cannot be used to establish that it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what the Foundation says about itself, but in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it(not the organization website, staff interviews, press releases, basic announcements). Please read Your First Article.
I see that you declared a COI; if you work for the Foundation or are otherwise compensated by them, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:38, 3 October 2022 review of submission by Brbs.kh

Can I edit the text and re-submit? Brbs.kh (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, rejection means resubmission is not possible. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do? Should I delete it and re-write it? Thank for your reply 331dot. Brbs.kh (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that will not help. Have you read WP:NCORP? I see that several reviewers have pointed you to that guideline. If the company is not notable, no amount of rewriting will make an article about it acceptable for the encyclopaedia. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:41, 3 October 2022 review of draft by Niaz.ahmad222


Niaz.ahmad222 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Niaz.ahmad222? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of your sources are any good; they just document that the company exists. Notability, as measured by significant coverage in third-party sources with editorial oversight, is our measuring stick for determining if a given topic should have an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:21, 3 October 2022 review of draft by 2601:5C7:4100:3600:D4BE:3A0B:59F9:4B3D


Hi,

I am seeking tips on how to find reliable sources to put in articles.


2601:5C7:4100:3600:D4BE:3A0B:59F9:4B3D (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft starts: "Cryogenecist, more commonly referred to as Low Temperature Physicists, is a scientist who practices the profession of Cryogenics." The rest of the draft describes cryogenics, and thus is an attempt at what we call a content fork of the article Cryogenics. The draft appears to be completely superfluous. -- Hoary (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

06:48:41, 4 October 2022 review of submission by 117.217.33.100


dear Admin, kindly guide, with regard to the standard of an article to be published on Wikipedia. again the request has been denied by the wiki admins to publish the same referring to reliable & secondary sources constraints. please resolve the issue.

Warm Regards!

117.217.33.100 (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been repeatedly declined, and eventually rejected, for lack of notability. Civil servants are not inherently notable, so they must establish notability by WP:GNG. Please study that guideline carefully, because it applies to the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only way that he would meet GNG is if independent reliable sources report on his work and describe how he is important or influential to the work the government is doing. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:03:54, 4 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by LucreziaManenti


Good day, can you explain what is wrong with my article "Kama.Sport". What do I need to change? I took inspiration from Wyscout, because it is very similar to Kama.Sport. Thank you for your time.

LucreziaManenti (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LucreziaManenti First, if you work for this company, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, please read the paid editing policy(I've also placed information about this on your user talk page).
Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and its activities or what it considers to be its history. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of what the company does and goes into detail about its significance or influence as the source sees it(not as the company itself sees it). Press releases, the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and the like do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article.
Note that using other articles as a model is not usually a good idea, as those too could be problematic and you wouldn't be aware of this- see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first article, sorry for mistakes.
Where I can insert the "Connected contributor (paid)"? Now I insert in the "User talk".
It's important than Kama.Sport be on Wikipedia, as Wyskout (for example). Not for advertising. I will cancell the personal link of the founder. And I will add the Serie A link about the collaboration and the Social Football Summit Awards. LucreziaManenti (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:19, 4 October 2022 review of submission by Telcrypto


Telcrypto (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also editing the draft as USER:TelCrypto Elite? The draft has been rejected it will not be considered again. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:29, 4 October 2022 review of draft by BearPuns


I am hoping to get a better understanding on what is considered an independent source. I am hoping to get an article about an internet music label (Geometric Lullaby) published, but was declined for a lack of independent sources. I assume this is due to my use of interviews being a part of the sources, but I only did so because there is not a lot of coverage on Geometric Lullaby on news outlets or the likes, mainly discussion on vaporwave pages on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and other unreliable sources. I would appreciate any help and clarification to assist in getting this page off the ground. Thank you. BearPuns (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If interviews with company principals are all you have, odds are there's no chance we can have an article at this time. Bandcamp and YouTube are generally not acceptable sources (the latter's only usable if it's uploaded by a news agency or similar reliable outlet to its own verified channel). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. What you said makes sense, though I am curious about one thing: seeing that Bandcamp and YouTube are typically not accepted (except for certain circumstances), would the likes of small journals/reviews from unbiased independent sources suffice in the future? For example, if a fan of Geometric Lullaby were to create a review of the label as a whole without relying exclusively on information from the label owner and publish it to their own personal page (like a blog for example), would this be considered a reliable independent source? Thank you again for the clarification!
Cheers, BearPuns (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that falls under the same issues as Bandcamp does (no editorial oversight). Professional reviews of their music or albums would help immensely here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:18, 4 October 2022 review of draft by Wtfiv


Could you tell me what exactly I need to get this back as a new page? I can expand with more details from the article, but things like birth and death and life are not easily available. His importance is the role he played in publishing political cartoons, and I'd like to use him as live link for the captions in images I've created in Andrew Jackson.

Again, I'm not asking for a review, just the minimum to get this back as an article. Thanks. (I don't know if this makes a difference: When I first posted, there was mention of lack of reliable source. I've now posted the JSTOR number, which can be confirmed.)

Wtfiv (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources, you only have one so far. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


October 5

00:47:23, 5 October 2022 review of submission by Brainiac 9999


Brainiac 9999 (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am describing a religious faith that has a name but cannot be remembered. I remember the key beliefs, but the faith is not Neopagan since there are 99 Deities that emerged from the Creator. It is not the New Age Movement since it was said to be founded October 31, 1000 but even the name is of a Gaelic, Welsh or other Celtic name meaning "eternity." We in the faith believe that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh only to become 99 Deities. Please help!

Find a different website to proselytise on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:02, 5 October 2022 review of draft by Sahar.Ahmed


May I ask if I have to add citation to all published books and articles in this article? or its better to delete those which cant have citations? Many thanks.

Sahar Abuelhaija 11:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sahar.Ahmed: firstly, you shouldn't attempt to list every publication someone has produced; Wikipedia is not intended to be a comprehensive catalogue of a person's entire output — pick only a few of the most notable ones as examples. Secondly, whether or not you need to support all books and articles with a citation, you do need to support just about everything else: please be aware that recently-deceased people are subject to the same WP:BLP rules as living people, meaning that anything potentially contentious, as well as all private personal and family details and the like, must all be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable sources. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:41, 5 October 2022 review of submission by KR2022

Hello, I have added an article about Li-Cycle, using over 20 external resources. However, my article was declined saying that the resources are not good enough. Can you please help me make my article better? Many thanks, Katerina KR2022 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KR2022: first, just to clarify, you don't have 20+ sources; you have 20+ citations, many of which are to the same source. But either way, that's not really the point, because rather than the number of references, it's the quality that matters: five solid sources is better than fifty flaky ones. We need to see significant coverage (of the subject, not some indirectly related topics) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Routine business reporting, publicity material, sponsored content, and interviews don't count, as don't passing mentions. With that in mind, please identify the 3-4 strongest sources to demonstrate notability with, and summarise what they have said about the subject. That way you'll end up with an article that 'ticks all the boxes' of notability, verifiability and neutral POV at once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:32:01, 5 October 2022 review of draft by David yaya

my article was have error that’s why am here to correct if thanks.

David yaya (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:29, 5 October 2022 review of submission by TrueSalamander


Hello Wikipedia moderators, I am seeking further review for a page on a very notable company. Based on the coverage by internationally renowned media outlets like Forbes, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, Entrepreneur, etc., and dozens of other reputable sources, I think this article merits publishing. Labeling respected, trusted, and widely read publications that focus on digital assets as "crypto junk" belies a definite bias and censorship toward any organization or movement related to blockchain technology. I am humbly asking for an equitable chance to publish this article -- if it needs additional references from some of the most well-known publications in the world, I would ask that you give me time to gather those. However, the article already seems to satisfy all requirements for posting on Wikipedia.

TrueSalamander (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrueSalamander Note that any editor may respond, not just moderators. The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company and its activities. It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company.
Also note that due to past disruption, editing about blockchain has special rules. I will notify you of them if you haven't been. 331dot (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the sources themselves, but their content. The sources need to show notability, as the source sees it, not merely documenting what the company does. As odd as it may sound, you have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources (in terms of content, not the outlet) are preferred to many low-quality ones. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


October 6

00:52:26, 6 October 2022 review of submission by 69.223.223.167


69.223.223.167 (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the proper place for this. Try Dropbox, Google Docs, or similar document-sharing services. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:46:18, 6 October 2022 review of draft by ArgonautOfHistory

Hello everyone, I would like to seek feedback for the draft article above, please. Appreciate your suggestions on any modifications/improvements needed. Thank you so much! Sincerely, ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit it for review. Theroadislong (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Theroadislong for your reply! Is it also possible to get some initial feedback before my submission, please? Thank you! Sincerely, ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArgonautOfHistory: the short answer is 'no'. In order to give meaningful feedback, a reviewer must essentially carry out a review. Which is what happens when you submit the draft for a review. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted @DoubleGrazing, thank you for the clarification! ArgonautOfHistory (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:35:50, 6 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Sfaheyfair


Hello, I am confused as to why the page was not accepted. The reference that I used was a press release by Broadway World and was used to verify the podcast on Stephanie Blocks page. Why would the reference work on one page but not another?

I also copied the format that the podcast used on Smartness and added the 45 Episodes that have aired on STAGES PODCAST.

Its unclear to me what was done incorrectly and I'd appreciate it very much if it is clarified so I can fix the problem.

Thank you Sfaheyfair (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sfaheyfair Press releases aren't acceptable for establishing notability anywhere on Wikipedia. If this is done elsewhere, it needs to be addressed(see WP:OSE). 331dot (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I have another article from Forbes I will put in instead. Ill also change it on Stephanie Blocks page so there is no confusion.
Was there anything else on the Stages Podcast page that needed tending to. this way you dont have to keep coming back to it.
thanks so much Sfaheyfair (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:40, 6 October 2022 review of submission by Akodip

I have restructed the article by sticking to what is known about the subjected and added good sources to support the article. How can it be resubmitted for review? Akodip (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected so won't be considered further. Profiles. directory listings, Amazon and Spotify are NOT reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:46:54, 6 October 2022 review of draft by Jnean777


Hi There! The draft of my article was denied. It says the sources are not verifiable. However, this article contains information from public sources like accredited Universities and locale news stations.

Jnean777 (talk) 14:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnean777: the decline notice doesn't say the sources are not verifiable; it says the sources do not provide "significant coverage [...] about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject", meaning they are not sufficient to establish the subject's notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:30, 6 October 2022 review of submission by 154.120.107.163


154.120.107.163 (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:48, 6 October 2022 review of draft by Pedrimonto


The draft I submitted was declined for "lack of reliable sources". I have used credible sources such as International News Agencies (EFE), US newspapers such as "Los Angeles Times" and "The Miami Herald", prestigious industry magazines such as "Variety" and "Billboard", institutional sources such as the Grammys, the Emmys and the Security and Exchange Commission as well as trade publications.

I have reviewed other pieces and have found them less supported. My guess is that the reviewer does not know these sources well enough or the country/industry. These are prestigious media in the US, with massive distribution and well-respected organizations in the entertainment business. I have corrected other reviewers' comments in terms of style and the like and I know the sources I referenced are of the highest quality.

I would like some help in addressing these points. Pedrimonto (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Pedrimonto (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating "reliable sources" with "reliable outlets". Not everything a given outlet publishes is a reliable source (an example I commonly use is that an interview published in The New York Times is every bit as usable as an interview by Borat). Name-drops, quotables, interviews, op-eds, and churnalism aren't going to be usable sources no matter what outlet they're published in. The reviewers are also noting that this draft is overcited in spots. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


October 7

01:19:41, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Mbdfar

I am requesting a non-biased re-review of Draft:Lana_Rhoades on the basis of new sources not discussed in the 4 previous AfDs, the last of which was in 2020. Over half of the cited references did not exist at the time of the last discussion. The same closing editor in the last few submissions has not commented on or reviewed any new sources, instead deferring to the old AfDs.

I'll start with the industry specific sources. Keep in mind, these are NSFW. Here's the Playboy article published in 2021. Playboy is listed on WP:RS. This is a multi-page biographical source about the subject's life and career and clearly a reliable, secondary source with very significant coverage.

There are three AVN sources in the article, and more at the AVN website. These have been discussed in previous AfDs and dismissed as non-RS. However, AVN as a source was reviewed and listed at WP:RS in 2021 (after the AfDs). The three sources are AVN articles, not press releases as previously argued, which is explicitly considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I sourced the articles that did not mention the subject's business to avoid promotion.

There are two articles from Grazia UK. I can't find any discussion about the source, but it seems to be an established publication. The author of both cited articles is an editor of the magazine. This article I believe to be especially in depth. Is it uninteresting celebrity news? Sure. But I don't think it can be dismissed as a mere tabloid. It can be inane and still a reliable source that shows notability.

The Daily Beast article has had mixed opinions in previous AfDs about how significant the subject is within the article, but I think it's much more than just a namedrop. I'd welcome further review.

GQ has been considered a reliable source in a previous discussion, and this article has never been discussed in a previous AfD. This is a simple article about a milestone in the subject's career. The g1 article has also not been discussed. Both of these are significant coverage and not promotional.

Then there are those sources concerning the subject's foray into crypto. None of these sources were published at the time of the previous AfDs. This includes the capital.com article and the bitcoin.com article. I'm not sure how to assess the reliability of these sources, but they are both written by employees of the websites. Both are significant coverage and are not promotional in nature.

There are likely more WP:RS than what I've listed if this does not prove to be enough. For one, XBIZ is listed at WP:RS as being considered generally reliable for the adult industry. I have not cited any XBIZ articles, but there are 130 hits when searching for the subject. There are also 53,900 hits on Google News for the subject. Yes, these are 99% tabloid fluff non-RS junk articles, but there are certainly some RS hidden in the haystack.

All in all, I just want a fair review of the article. I think the subject is notable and worth inclusion. I have no connection to the subject - I've just been surprised how much backlash there has been during this drafting process and would like to see it through. Mbdfar (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mbdfar, I am sympathetic to your concern here but I don't think AfC can solve this situation. Given the consensus from the AfDs and the admin lock on the page, I believe the best process would be appealing to the Admin to remove the protection and allowing you to be WP:BOLD and place in mainspace. If the admin unwilling, can appeal to WP:DRV, I think. In short, going to need community consensus the page should exist. Slywriter (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:15:24, 7 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by NeeRao


I recently wrote a biography of a person who is renowned in the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and is credited with many services to the Police force. He has held important roles for the Government of India. Please explain to me how I can make changes to the article so it can be published.

NeeRao (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:36:26, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Balaam Barugahara


Am still new, kindly help me correct the neccesary areas on this for it to be approved within the shortest time possible. I thank you all

Balaam Barugahara (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balaam Barugahara Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability; specifically, the definition of a notable person. We are interested in what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves or in the mere reporting of their accomplishments. Please see the Five Pillars to learn more about Wikipedia. You should use a social media outlet to post your resume or accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balaam Barugahara: it will not be approved, because it was speedily deleted. Please read the message posted on your user talk page explaining why autobiographies are a Really Bad Idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balaam Barugahara I think you need LinkedIn, not Wikipedia. If you believe that Wikipedia will enhance your reputation please think again. Wikipedia adds no value to you. You must add value to Wikipedia. Passing WP:BIO does that.
🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:39:35, 7 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SimonToney9


Hello I am new to wikipedia. Can you please tell me what to do to get this article approved approved.


SimonToney9 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonToney9: the draft was speedily deleted as promotional, and will therefore not be approved. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please read the message posted on your user talk page advising against autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal blog about myself. How can I make a Bio about myself that will end up on google search? SimonToney9 (talk) 08:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9 Wikipedia is not a blogging site, it is an encyclopaedia. If you want to blog, try one of the many blogging platforms. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 There is nothing you can do, it was deleted as blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability; specifically, the definition of a notable person. We are interested in what independent reliable sources say about a person, not what they say about themselves or in the mere reporting of their accomplishments. Please see the Five Pillars to learn more about Wikipedia. You should use a social media outlet to tell the world about yourself. Please also see the autobiography policy to learn why autobiographical articles are strongly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont not fully understand. How can I get my own google knoglepannel? SimonToney9 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can i have my own like this Gergvrf3543gerv.png SimonToney9 (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 We aren't interested in helping you get a Knowledge Panel, which is just a collation of search result information- for which a Wikipedia article is only one possible input. As I said, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. That is what social media is for. Also please read about how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. Have you read the autobiography policy yet? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how the hell do other people have personal descriptions then? SimonToney9 (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to appear on google I can. SimonToney9 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, an independent editor wholly unconnected with you will eventually take note of coverage of you in independent reliable sources like the news and choose on their own to write about you. You can't try to force this issue. You will have to figure out some other way to promote yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this shit so confusing SimonToney9 (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I can't have my own knoglepannel? SimonToney9 (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SimonToney9 Google and Wikipedia are separate websites. We have nothing to do with what Google requires for its knowlege panels, though I am aware a Wikipedia article is only one possible input. What I can tell you is that you seem to not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article, and even if you did, ideally you shouldn't be the one to write it. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if there any other ways to get a google pannel? SimonToney9 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to contact Google or search Google's pages to see what they require. We have nothing to do with what they require. Even if they do require a Wikipedia article, you do not meet the criteria to merit one. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the words numnuts SimonToney9 (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9 there is no need to get offensive, and I would advise you to adopt a more civil tone, thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about how personal attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonToney9: that's really nothing to do with us; as already mentioned, Google and Wikipedia are entirely different things. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
learn how to speak, "There is nothing you can do" SimonToney9 (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:48, 7 October 2022 review of draft by Flatairbag


Hello, After 3 submission attempts I would like to understand examples of exactly what you require to get this page published. I am intending to write an article on a well-respected (who lived a fairly private life) New Zealand artist who last year passed away. He spent his career full-time as an artist, had hundreds of public exhibitions since the 1960s, producing hundreds of oil paintings (some which sold for over USD$30,000, was granted to go to Antartica with the New Zealand Antartic Research Programme, achieved a New Zealand Order of Merit medal, and helped many charity organisations such as the World Wide fund for Nature, NZ Forest & Bird Society, QE2 National Trust etc. I have included references from the Auckland Museum, Antartica NZ website, Queens Birthday Honors List, New Zealand Herald (newspaper), other newspapers etc. Although top of his game in New Zealand in the 80/90s, the man lived a fairly private existance and hence there is not alot of information online about him. I look at some articles of other New Zealand Artists and some of them have achieved far less, but yet have wikipedia pages about them - So does someone who achieved an MNZM for servives to the Arts and Community not count for a wikipedia article? Please can you help provide the necessary information I need to be able to publish this, for what I consider to be one of New Zealands most recognised yet private artists.. (and according to articles such as the following I am not the only one with this opinion) https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-southland-times/20210726/281522229116641 ("We've lost two of the masters this year" - Wayne Marriott Art Gallery Owner) Thank you.

Flatairbag (talk) 09:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flatairbag Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This is a subtle but important distinction. Please read other stuff exists; these other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate and have simply not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate content can get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you wish, you can help us by identifying other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, as those have been vetted by the community.
Sources do not need to be online, they need only be publicly available (i.e. books in a library). You do need to show that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable artist. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatairbag: the first thing you must establish is that this person is notable. You can do that either via WP:GNG, by showing significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Or if that's not possible for any reason, then you may assert special notability by one or more of the four criteria in WP:ARTIST, as long as you support this with reliable evidence. Note that things like being 'famous' or prolific etc. has nothing to do with notability as defined in the Wikipedia context (although it may lead to it).
The next thing you must do is make sure to reference all material information, anything potentially contentious, and (for living and recently-deceased people, which per WP:BDP possibly includes this person) any private personal and family details.
What this means, effectively, is that you shouldn't be writing an article based on what you know about the subject, but rather summarise (in your own words) what independent and reliable published sources have said about it. You also shouldn't add your own interpretation or commentary, or put a positive or negative spin on things.
There is more to it, of course, but this will get you pretty close to an acceptable article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:48, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Vvs3693


Hello,

I tried to publish an article on Indian music composer and the draft was declined. The comment said the person not meeting the notability criteria and unreliable sources. I had provided the IMDB, discography link from a media website and the IMDB link for his debut work. He is an artist since 2014 and has done some notable work in the recent years. I am not sure why this doesn't meet criteria and what reference other than media link I should cite. His name is already on the pages of his film (that's how I figured out there was no article for him). Not sure how to proceed from here.

vvs3693 10:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvs3693 (talk • contribs)

@Vvs3693: the draft cites IMDb and Filmibeat.com, neither of which is considered reliable. The ToI is slightly better, but far from great — see WP:TOI. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:20, 7 October 2022 review of submission by JANAKKAFLE121


please help us by editing our page . we are legally registered media in nepal and running since 2021 . we want to provide all our information to our visitors by making our wikipedia page . We hope you will help us .



JANAKKAFLE121 (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JANAKKAFLE121: before anything else happens, you must disclose your relationship to this media company, with which you clearly have a conflict of interest. This matter was queried on your user talk page User talk:JANAKKAFLE121 already back in April, and I don't see that you have done anything about it. Please note that this is a hard requirement, so please action it now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for that I have not more experience in wikipedia editing so i got a problem . For your information i am the owner of this media company and i want to create page so other people can get right information about us . JANAKKAFLE121 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely the wrong reason to create an article(we don't have pages, we have articles), and is not permitted on Wikipedia. You should use your own website or social media to do that. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, only in what others say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:52, 7 October 2022 review of draft by Encyloedit

Hi, this draft is redundant now, how do I withdraw it from the submissions list as a main space article covers the same content now.

Encyloedit (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Encyloedit: I've declined the draft, which removes it from the pending drafts pool. After six months or so (assuming nobody edits it in the meantime) it'll get deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may also mark it for speedy deletion as an author request by placing {{db-author}} at the top. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @DoubleGrazing Thanks Encyloedit (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:10, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Wikidibo

I've written a page on a UK company which keeps being flagged as reading like an advert. The feedback states that it must be written from a "neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

I'm not sure how best to make an edit to it to improve it, as it's written neutrally, based on factual statements which all have independent sources which are referenced correctly. The sources are mostly UK and global news outlets that have reported on the company (BBC, Forbes, TechCrunch), or the websites of large multi-national companies that have worked with the company (Ford, Mercedes), as well as some other industry related commentary from insurance press.

I was wondering if there were any specific sources here which were causing the issue and if removed would enable it to be acceptable, or are there specific sentences, phrases, facts or information which are causing issues please?

Wikidibo (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1114668242"