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 Anujguptahmsc (talk | contribs) at 09:30, 13 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


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]
Thanks for the suggestions Slywriter. I'm reticent about being BOLD with such a contentious article, so I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_October_8#Lana_Rhoades. Mbdfar (talk) 00:34, 9 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]
@SimonToney9 That sentence was perfectly valid and understandable. David10244 (talk) 08:36, 8 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]
@Vvs3693 IMDB is user-generated content; anyone can write whatever they want on that site, whether it's true or not. That's why, as DoubleGrazing said, IMDB cannot be used to show that the artist is notable (notability can only be demonstrated by reliable sources). We need citations to things that have been written about him or her by others ... and not interviews. Same with Filmbeat. David10244 (talk) 08:56, 10 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]

Well, for starters you begin the draft with a spam link to your website! Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:38, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Sifiso Cele


Sifiso Cele (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Draft:Amandawe Mission What is wrong with this draft and how can I improve it?[reply]

As the tags say, entire sections are unsourced. You need to source all the content. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:01, 7 October 2022 review of submission by Relgin10


}}

The reviewer said: "This does not present as a usable Wikipedia item. Please review the guide to article creation and the manual of style particularly MOS:HEAD." I have done this and am unable to determine what specifically needs to be changed in the article, both in the guide to article creation and in the manual of style. Is it possible to get more specific guidance about what needs correcting or changing?


Relgin10 (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Relgin10, what we need first is to see three instances of significant coverage in wp:reliable, independent sources. That's how we prove an article subject is notable enough for inclusion.
Your best bet is to completely pare the article back to what is included in those three sources. Other information can be added later from other reliable nonaffiliated sources, but to prove the subject should have an article in the first place, we first need the above. Valereee (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

06:51:53, 8 October 2022 review of submission by SkiUniTyy

I want to publish my article on Wikipedia. Please check my article. SkiUniTyy (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is a completely unsourced biography. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:12, 8 October 2022 review of submission by SkiUniTyy

I want my article to be published on Wikipedia. Please look my article. Looking forward to hearing from you. SkiUniTyy (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SkiUniTyy: it has been rejected, and you've given us no reason to reconsider it, that I can see at least.
Please don't post multiple messages about the same thing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:11:02, 8 October 2022 review of draft by Kainis


Hello, I need help with internal links. I open "Insert link" box and type a title of the article. When I use Russian language, it is not appeared to be found, though the article actually exists. Links to articles in English works perfectly. How can I fix it? I see no reason to use external link to wiki page, but the proper way seems not working for me.

Kainis (talk) 11:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kainis: this isn't really an AfC-related question, since you don't have a draft in the system, and in any case I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to do. Firstly, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content in English. Different language versions of Wikipedia are separate projects, and you can't create regular internal 'wikilinks' between them, you need to use the template:ill for inter-language links instead. That's for inline links; whereas if you're talking about linking articles in different language versions through the 'Languages' section in the side panel, that can only be done once the article is published. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really forgot that every language version of Wikipedia is separate project. Thank you, I created my article and linked it properly. Kainis (talk) 11:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:31:34, 8 October 2022 review of draft by Love696969


Love696969 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question @Love696969? You haven't submitted your draft for review yet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i want to check that my draft article is for publish or not @DoubleGrazing Love696969 (talk) 11:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
good to go or not Love696969 (talk) 11:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Love696969: that is indeed what a review will aim to ascertain, and you get a review when (or rather, at some point after) you submit your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hello @DoubleGrazing i submitted my draft for review
thank you so much for your guidance . Love696969 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

07:09:44, 9 October 2022 review of submission by TheAssassinAgent

What things need to be changed so that this page can be published TheAssassinAgent (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAssassinAgent: TBH, many things. First and foremost, you need to address the reason why this was declined, namely lack of evident notability. We need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites no such source; not a single one.
Second, you must support every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private information with inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently eg. the 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced.
You also need to remove all those inline external links, of which there are many.
I can't guarantee that this would still be accepted, but that would at least go a long way in the right direction. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
okay I will be sure to add reliable sources. maybe in 6 months people would automatically start to know this person. I just wanted to be the first one to write an article on wikipedia of someone before they get famous. TheAssassinAgent (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAssassinAgent Please see wp:TOOSOON. David10244 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheAssassinAgent Wikipedia does not have articles about a topic before it is "famous". The topic must achieve its fame first- here "fame" is defined as notability. Once can be famous and not notable, or notable and not famous, the terms are not necessarily interchangable. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:15, 9 October 2022 review of submission by 2401:4900:6068:875A:0:0:634:463


2401:4900:6068:875A:0:0:634:463 (talk) 11:44, 9 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) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:14:43, 9 October 2022 review of submission by 160.119.228.228


Dear Sir/Madam, I posted this publication out of the best of my knowledge about myself, indeed this should been submitted by another which could've been easier for me to "fake" an identity to submit but its for a good course . Moreover, I have been crowned nor have exceptionally impacted my community "WORLD" yet but it's all coming together and soon will be. I'm not requesting this because I want to be on the internet if so I would've build for myself a website and created social media platforms, but I'm creating this foundation for other in the near future and when the time comes. Unfortunately I don't have words to convince you to accept, but I can only ask you to do a review accept my submission and or if you have any advise as to how I should write an acceptable article I will appreciate it.

Sincerely yours, Felix J Asubonteng Dwomoh 160.119.228.228 (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. Please find some sort of social media or blogging platform instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:48:43, 9 October 2022 review of submission by Carrotsandpeas


Carrotsandpeas (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my page get deleted? I have references and cited my information.

Your draft is here Draft:Jessica Gabsi though it probably should be deleted, it has zero independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:27, 9 October 2022 review of submission by Socialmakeover


This editor is rejecting because they have done zero review of the Music Artist themselves. Please allow actual "experts" in Music to submit new artits.

Socialmakeover (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialmakeover The reviewer correctly rejected the draft, as you offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the musician,.showing how he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. His social media accounts do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a directory where mere existence merits inclusion. If this musician is a client, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. Please read about the role of expert editors on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot. Not a client. Im a fan and a campaign volunteer. I reposted it with as plain with links to the accreditations. This is a musician running for President of the United States of America. Just because they're not Kanye level of stardom doesn't mean that the artist isn't a real musician.... Socialmakeover (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, given the admitted (and undisclosed) conflict of interest and the extremely volatile nature of this topic area you shouldn't be editing this. This is like taking an introductory piano lesson and then skipping years of practise to play in a concert. Their being a "real musician" or a candidate for President is irrelevant as to whether or not they are (1) notable in any context or (2) the article on them is sourced properly. Your sources fail to demonstrate the former, and none of them can be used to help satisfy the latter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is notable and reference...

Socialmakeover (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialmakeover For follow up comments, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The fact that you think everything is notable and referenced means that you fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is and what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. We can use literally none of the sources you have provided:
Please do yourself a favour and read up on the sorts of sources we consider acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB has more oversight than Wikipedia. Sorry. I'll remove myself from the platform. Socialmakeover (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb's editorial policies have actually been discussed on Wikipedia before, and they've always been considered lacking. There have been 32 discussions about IMDb's suitability as a source; none of them have been in favour of using it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally hundreds of people who say they are running for president of the US. Doesn't mean anything unless sources write about it. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:56, 9 October 2022 review of submission by Kwanele Skele

i would like to know why my arcticle draft was decline

Kwanele Skele (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwanele Skele: your draft was declined for lack of notability, and speedily deleted for being inappropriate. Can't say more, as I didn't see the content, which is now gone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

03:24:50, 10 October 2022 review of draft by William Seeds


Here's the citations references from City University New York - And Bienvenido Bones Banez Jr listed on the notable art world with HR Giger, Ernst Fuchs, and other important Visionary art is a journey, an inner journey of interconnectedness, into a world of extraordinary imagination, encompassing and exploring the qualities of light and dark with a universal and personal focus. Utilizing images that run the spectrum of the human condition, elation to desperation. From the heart rises fantastic and astonishing works of art!

A new art world has emerged; we are witness to a burgeoning of creation. A new and exciting culture, not just an art movement; whose life stems from a central point of inner growth, development and experience into the deep and intimate exploration of spirit with visual expression as key to its understanding.

An organic process of transformation occurs within the sacred and fertile inner world. It shifts from a meditative experience into a culture expressly manifested for the now and the future. It is the visionary who can create in this ‘place’ in a most compelling and extraordinary way! 

     https://artgallery.qcc.cuny.edu/exhibits/visionaries/?fbclid=IwAR3lHa2v0qkpRbtbRHqfqt1TfcEOJKioSUKkBoOj3OhLscV2p4WSUvPd5fQ

William Seeds (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@William Seeds: do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
William Seeds, your draft contains vast swathes of unreferenced, non-neutral content laden down with impenetrable jargon. That's completely inappropriate for a neutral, well-referenced encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask for a Checkuser; this may be Concernsavant (talk · contribs) just going off of what they write above, which is very similar to the repeatedly shot down arguments he made. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And CU comes back confirmed. I guess we can call this request moot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 09:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:19:29, 10 October 2022 review of submission by Ernu dasha


I am a researcher in Australia. I noticed my colleagues published some new results In Nature on a few new fossil fish species, so I created a few wiki draft pages to ensure they are captured as the findings/discoveries are extraordinary and very important for the evolutionary biology field and the public to know about. I am amazed my submission got rejected. I would like to know why, as the reviewer didn't put any proper comments. The findings are just published. As such, it will only be 1 reference/citation linked to the discovery. I would question if the reviewer is qualified to assess my drafts. I would like to find out how could I get them published.

Ernu dasha (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernu dasha: your draft wasn't rejected, it was only declined, meaning you are welcome to resubmit it once you have addressed the reason for declining. That reason being, the draft only lists a single source, and doesn't cite it correctly — please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing.
As for the reviewer's expertise or otherwise in the subject matter, please do not make assumptions, especially as this has no bearing on the draft review process. The review mainly looks at whether the draft meets Wikipedia's core policies for inclusion, not whether the information provided is factually correct or not; for that, we rely on verifiable published sources. Which takes us back to my previous point: with only one source cited, we need to see something else to corroborate the information. If this means having to wait until more publications appear, so be it — Wikipedia is not published to a deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is helpful. I will see what can I do. 121.45.173.114 (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:35, 10 October 2022 review of submission by Gardenkur

Dear Editors. The subject of this article is a Government undertaking managing the operation of Indian ports. There is no advertisement and promotional portions in the article. It highlights as information the functions of the institution. The institution facilitates trade through waters internationally. Request your opinion on the same. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Gardenkur (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenkur Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of an organization and what it does- it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The reviewer rejected your draft, meaning that it will not be considered further, because they think that the prospect of that occurring is low to nonexistent. If you have independent sources that give this organization significant coverage as to its importance or influence(and not just tell what it does), please first appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:07:33, 10 October 2022 review of submission by Jnean777


Hi There,

I was directed to come back here and ask a question about my draft being denied. It says the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Will you please let me know why? The references are from verifiable sources.


Thanks so much!

Jnean777 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jnean777 I've placed a link to your draft in the proper place so we know what you are discussing. It's not the sources themselves that are necessarily the issue, but their content. Most of them do not seem to be significant coverage of him personally. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:53, 10 October 2022 review of draft by Wikibaker


Wiki Team - thank you in advance for your support and for sharing your expertise.

This is my first Wikipedia article and I have made several additions and revisions subsequent to the recommendations from Asilvering . As such, I have two questions:

1) What further revisions / additions would be recommended prior to me resubmitting the article for review and approval?

2) On the Talk page of my article, there are several suggestions for Wikiprojects for which the article would be a fit. I presume that I should not take action on pursuing those Wikiprojects until the article has been approved, correct?

I would welcome any input to help get this article published, so thanks again for your help.


Wikibaker (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibaker: I've had a look at this draft and its sources, and, as the earlier reviewer has also suggested, my gut feel is that the subject is probably notable, but I cannot find quite enough proof of that by the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NPROF route. So my advice would be to decide which types of notability you wish to assert, and then strengthen the evidence for that. (Having said which, you are of course free to resubmit the draft as it stands, and it's possible that another reviewer will be happy to accept it.)
As for the Wikiproject tags listed on the talk page, they're just there to flag up the draft to those projects as an upcoming article of possible interest to them. You can ignore them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

03:04:59, 11 October 2022 review of submission by Sush150


Sush150 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question @Sush150? This draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:18:16, 11 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Dubaiinfo


I am requesting help regarding the article in draft which i had been updating from time to time and expected some contribution from other so that article will be neutral as per the wiki guideline, i wrote article taking reference from internet and submitted first draft after 7-8 months which was rejected. so i rewrote the article again which was rejected again after reading the comments i am not sure how to modify it further as i was reading other similar article they are also written in similar tone, so anyone is welcome to modify article as i have already added lot of references.

Dubaiinfo (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubaiinfo: what help are you requesting? You need to be more specific, and preferably ask an actual question.
FWIW, I had a look at the sources cited in this draft, and I don't see them adding up to proof of notability, but I'll leave it for another reviewer to judge that.
First, however, you need to respond to the paid editing query I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Help i mean someone to contribute towards this article to so it get published, I have been managing this article for over 8 months it was decline despite make lot of changes to the draft so i have given up on this as i can see another article similar to this published if that is published why is this declined example: Majid Al Futtaim. Both people are from UAE and both are billionaires one heads Majid Al Futtiam group and other Heads Al Habtoor Group. my third attempt for this was to make it similar to the article mentioned in this reply still it got declined so i am not sure how article draft which i did violates wiki policy and other doesn't.
Regarding your Second part which i don't understand Paid editing, what is this does Wiki allow paid editing? If this is paid service i cant pay as i am doing it as a voluntary work. Please advice how can i get this draft approved Dubaiinfo (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Paid editing" means that a person is editing as part of their job, or being specifically paid to edit.
The whole url is unnecessary when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets, as I did for you here.
It could be that the other article you reference does indeed violate policy and has simply not been addressed yet. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You have just documented what the person has done, this does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dubaiinfo: by and large everyone works on articles that are of interest to them. I can't speak for the other AfC reviewers, but I for one have no interest in this subject, so will have to cordially decline. Perhaps you can ask at the WikiProject United Arab Emirates in case someone there is willing to chip in.
My question regarding paid editing comes from noticing that you have created a number of articles, all with Al Habtoor in the title, which suggests you may have something to do with the group. Please read carefully the message I posted on your user talk page, and action as relevant. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:13:19, 11 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Fourpizzaslices


I have been trying to find relevant sources to cite on this article of a Nepali company, but the only information available is on the company website. Could you help me with this? What can I do to put reliable citations?

Fourpizzaslices (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourpizzaslices: if you cannot find reliable and independent secondary sources, then that alone tells us the company is almost certainly not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (at least the English-language one; you may have better luck on the Nepali one). Please note that sources don't have to be in English, or online, as long as they otherwise meet the WP:GNG standard, and are appropriately cited.
That said, this draft seems to be just marketing blurb, and should IMO be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:07, 11 October 2022 review of submission by Naimuddin386629


Naimuddin386629 (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Naimuddin386629: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:26, 11 October 2022 review of draft by Bsimonis


I am trying to create an entry for architect Charles Du Bois. Unfortunately, not much is known about him and references are difficult to find. Cu Bois was a well known set designer for the studios and as an architect he designed nearly 170 homes in Palm Springs, California. His style is unique and he is an important addition to the Desert Modernists, or Palm Springs School of Architecture. Your assistance with this entry is greatly appreciated. Bsimonis (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bsimonis Sources do not have to be online, they need only be publicly available. However, if what you say is true, that there aren't enough references, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources say about him, if there are no sources, there is nothing to summarize. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to newspaper and magazine articles that I have been able to find. I would like to resubmit. Should links be inline or added to the reference area? Bsimonis (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsimonis: you should use the system of inline citations + footnote sources, as described in REFB. And if you want to cite the same source more than once, please use NAMEDREF which keeps the footnote list clean and tidy. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsimonis: Even if you add references, the draft would probably not be accepted unless you also rewrite it in a more neutral and less narrative tone. I could give examples, but the whole draft is written in a kind of journalistic / essay register, which doesn't work in an encyclopedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

08:30:22, 12 October 2022 review of draft by 2401:4900:1C09:FA93:7D75:174D:C892:1A96


2401:4900:1C09:FA93:7D75:174D:C892:1A96 (talk) 08:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:15, 12 October 2022 review of submission by RPI2026F1

I want to know why the article was striked down for having no reliable sources. I thought Bloomberg was a reputable organization, and I also think Techcrunch is decently reputable. I do understand about the other two sources not being as reputable, but I thought the Bloomberg and TechCrunch sources covered the basic factual information. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RPI2026F1: this wasn't declined for having no reliable sources, but rather not adequate. If you accept that some of the sources cited are not reliable, then the information those sources are allegedly supporting is effectively unverified. It isn't enough to have some of the information supported by reliable sources — it all needs to be. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fine to remove the non reliably-sourced bits? I'm worried that's going to leave the page with like 3 lines of text. RPI2026F1 (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RPI2026F1: if the choice is between having only three lines of text, properly supported by reliable sources, vs. having ten lines of text, only three of which are properly supported, then clearly the former scenario is preferable. In any case, the content of an article should only really represent a summary of reliable published sources, therefore making statements which you cannot find reliable sources to support is wrong by definition. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rebuilt the article to reference almost entirely from the Bloomberg article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:40:14, 12 October 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rushistoriia


I have been working on a new entry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_T._Andrews I think I have followed the guidance I have been getting however, I am wondering if anyone can look it over before I submit it again? As I understand it, the article in question meets three of the criteria outlined for notability for academics. As I read the guidelines for notability for academics, I see at three areas that would qualify for inclusion. These are points 1, 3, and 5 listed on the notability page for academics. "1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The submission lists several examples of other important scholars commenting on the impact of his books. "3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society)" He is a member of the Russian Academy of Arts and Sciences. "5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." He is a "University Professor" which is a type of distinguished professor. Any advice or just another person to look the article over is appreciated.

Rushistoriia (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:47, 12 October 2022 review of submission by RJMcBug

I am requesting a re-review because I think that One Knoxville SC is notable enough for an article. The league they are in currently (USL League Two) has Wikipedia articles for majority of their teams. 95 of the leagues 115 teams have a Wikipedia article, which is 82.6%.

One Knoxville SC in the latest season: 

- Won the South Central Division
- Hosted three rounds of the playoffs
- Got to the Southern Conference Finals

The team was one of two teams that made the playoffs, that also didn't have a Wikipedia article. The only other team was NONA FC.

Looking at the team's division (Deep South Division), the average amount of reference regarding each team was 6.44. This draft has 14 references. All references except one (the team's website) are independent, reliable, and secondary.

Slywriter wrote a comment saying that it will become notable once the season starts. One season has passed since that comment was made Dege31 also said it was too soon before the season started. RJMcBug (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the other articles that should be deleted; see other stuff exists. Generally in this situation you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft; then you should come here and explain how they grossly erred or violated policy with the rejection. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:15, 12 October 2022 review of submission by Prince Tuhin13


What problem caused my article to be decline? Can any experienced editor help me please? Prince Tuhin13 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Baqibillah Mishkat Chowdhury —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:12:56, 12 October 2022 review of submission by Krystofia

Template:Lafc Krystofia=Krystofia

I created a biography of Alexandre Lessertisseur via wikipedia and it was rejected. The English version is a translation of the French one that I also modified. What is the problem and what can I do to publish the article?


Krystofia (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation was not rejected. It has not been accepted because it has no references. Either the French Wikipedia does not require references, or you failed to translate the references. And why you did you blank the draft? And why did you submit a draft in which his names were reversed, as Lessertisseur Alexandre? That is not his name. Were you trying to confuse the reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krystofia - You submitted multiple versions of biographies of the subject. You submitted a version in a sandbox, when there was also a version in draft space, correctly named Alexandre Lessertisseur. I declined the sandbox version because you should work on the version with his name on it. You then blanked that version, and it has now been restored. I would suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse about how to work on a single copy of a draft, correctly named. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been leaving versions of this article in multiple places under multiple names, and asking the question in multiple times. Please leave your COI indicator in place, and perhaps consider whether you should be the person creating it if you're not familiar with how articles should be created in the English wikipedia. Star Mississippi 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

06:05:20, 13 October 2022 review of draft by Fakehair


Fakehair (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Good morning;

Hope everyone is well. I know everyone is very busy reviewing many draft articles and you have your hans full. But, my article was denied a couple of times and with the guidance of the staff, believe I have lots of progress. Thanks to you. If anyone can ssist me in getting to the finish line, I would greatly appreciated the help...Hope to talk to someone soon..

Thank you

User :Fakehair

Hello, Fakehair. The references in your draft are bare URLs. This is suboptimal. I suggest that you expand your references by including full bibliographic details. This makes it much easier for reviewers to assess the reliability of the sources. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Fakehair, you included unreferenced content like While no one in his immediate family had musical talents, at the age of 12, Féquière started showing interest in playing guitar and singing which was a very difficult undertaking in his teenage years. The reason for this was very simple. In the 60's and the 70's most parents would not grant their children permission to become musicians. Musicians were stereotyped and falsely labeled as cheaters, womanizers and lazy minded individuals who despised work. This mentality pervaded and dominated the culture for decades and still today to a certain extent. But, by the time Féquière was 14 years of age, his father's decision to send him abroad to continue his studies pretty much open a new door for him to pursue his musical interests. You simply cannot include unreferenced opinionated commentary like this in an encyclopedia article. It is a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies such as Verifiability, the Neutral point of view and Biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:46, 13 October 2022 review of submission by Anujguptahmsc


Anujguptahmsc (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1115809735"