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 11:45, 26 December 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


December 17

02:22:26, 17 December 2022 review of draft by Rahulnag07


The request has been declined twice. Can someone please help on pointing out the gaps? I am unable to find any. I am not sure what exactly looks promotional. Hope to find some guidance here

@Rahulnag07: most of the content has no encyclopaedic value, eg. the 'Revenue' and 'Funding' sections are of no interest to us. And the whole draft has a very promotional feel to it, it's all about this many listeners and that many hours and partnerships here and licensing there. I get the feeling it's trying to sell me something.
The sources cited are also insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, consisting entirely of routine business reporting, churnalism, and in many cases covering individual programmes rather than the business as a whole.
And please don't ask the same question everywhere; either here or (not and) at the Teahouse. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've posted a COI query on your talk page; please read and action as relevant. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:23:42, 17 December 2022 review of draft by Krystal LeChuck


Last time the article was declined for the following reason: 

Comment: It appears that most if not all of the referenced sources are not reliable, press releases, primary, or only contain trivial mentions of the subject. This is a clear case of notability bombing and the prose is both promotional and not neutral. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is absolutely neutral, it is not promotional in any sense. If you believe it is, please point out the promotional language because I am failing to see it.

The references come from sources such as the University of Pennsylvania, United Nations, Interpol UNICRI, Forbes, American Banker Conferences, the World Bank, and there are many references to the subjects own website to show actual video or audio assets of mentioned interviews, and participations to events as a speaker.

Are those not reliable sources?

Krystal LeChuck (talk) 08:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal LeChuck It's not necessarily the sources themselves, but their content. You have done a nice job of describing Mr. Faggella's background and what he has done- the trouble is, that's not what we are looking for. Any article about Mr. Faggella must primarily summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling us what the subject has done, and goes into detail about their significance or influence as the source sees it.
The part about the podcast is more about the podcast itself than Mr. Faggella. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Krystal LeChuck: so what exactly is your question — whether the sources cited are considered reliable? Yes, some of them are; others (Soundcloud, YouTube, Forbes) are not. But the draft wasn't declined for lack of reliable source, but rather for lack of apparently notability. The sources are mostly primary, including many that he has written or said himself. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about him, and moreover we need to see significant coverage, not just passing mentions. (Meanwhile, we don't need to see 11 sources confirming that he has given some speeches, that's just WP:REFBOMBING.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

01:43:15, 19 December 2022 review of submission by Jaxon Montan

I felt Bondea did not look at my sources or my comments towards him.

Jaxon Montan (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxon Montan, Tiktok is not a source.Slywriter (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:29:16, 19 December 2022 review of submission by Btspurplegalaxy

The subject meets WP:BAND as they've charted on a country's national music chart. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 02:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BAND it should qualify due to charting tracks. The reviewers should check these things before declining the page. (I am not a reviewer, just another editor like you.) Hairmer (talk) 05:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that reviewers routinely don't "check these things", which is quite an accusation. Any evidence for that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btspurplegalaxy, message the reviewer who rejected on their talk page and ask for reconsideration based on the new source. I'd note that the article did not have the source when it was rejected and did not meet NBAND until 16 hours ago when another editor added the source. Until then it was too forward looking. Congrats to them on an excellent debut. Slywriter (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:14:00, 19 December 2022 review of submission by SumitVerma18


SumitVerma18 (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SumitVerma18: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i saw the ask for help link in the rejection and i just clicked it SumitVerma18 (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the idea is that you then actually ask a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for helping me in understanding the use of ask for advice desk, i will ask question next time also can you help me with the better way to find the secondary source so that next time it will not get rejected.. SumitVerma18 (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:58:36, 19 December 2022 review of draft by SumitVerma18


please help me in finding the more sources

SumitVerma18 (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SumitVerma18: that's not really the point of this help desk. We're all volunteer editors like yourself. Everyone contributes to articles that they are interested in, and it's unlikely that any of the help desk hosts have an interest in this topic (although I can't speak for them, obviously). You may wish to enquire at WP:WikiProject India, but essentially the onus is on you to develop the drafts you've created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:42, 19 December 2022 review of submission by AZ PALACE, SHAHID NAGAR


AZ PALACE IS A MANSION IN DHAKA. IT IS BUILT IN THE EARLY 21TH CENTURY. AZ PALACE IS SITUATED ON ROAD NO 2 IN SHAHID NAGAR, NEAR THE BUSINESS DISTRICT OF NARAYANGANJ.THE MANSION WAS BUILT BY MD HASAN UZ ZAMAN WHO IS THE ONLY ONE SON OF MD MATIAR RAHAMAN. IT IS THE BIRTH PLACE OF ABDULLAH AL-MUHAYMIN BIN HASAN ZEUS AND MABSHURA TAIYEEBA AURORA. HISTORY MD MATIAR RAHAMAN WAS BOUGHT THE LAND FROM OSMAN GONI. IN 1990, HE BOUGHT THIS LAND AND 1998, BUILT A SEMI PAKA BUILDING FOR HIR HIS LIVING. HE LIVED THIS HOUSE TILL HIS DEATH. IN 2011, MD MATIAR RAHAMAN DIED, AFTER HIS DEATH, HIS LOVING WIFE HALANA BEGUM WAS DEVIDED THIS LAND AMONG HER FOUR DAUGHTER AND ONE SON. MD HASAN UZ ZAMAN WAS GOT THIS LAND BY INHERIET. MD MATIAR RAHAMAN AND HALANA BEGUM IS GRANDPARENTS OF ABDULLAH AL-MUHAYMIN BIN HASAN ZEUS AND MABSHURA TAIYEEBA AURORA. 09 OCTOBER 2017 IS THE BIRTH DATE OF ABDULLAH AL-MUHAYMIN BIN HASAN ZEUS AND 21 JUNE 2022 IS THE BIRTH DATE OF MABSHURA TAIYEEBA AURORA.

AZ PALACE, SHAHID NAGAR (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AZ PALACE, SHAHID NAGAR: firstly, I've already asked you NOT TO SHOUT, it is quite rude and very annoying to read.
Secondly, this isn't a question, you've simply reposted the content from your rejected draft. Do you have an actual question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:19:33, 19 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Maxbro240



Maxbro240 (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@maxbro240: the draft has been rejected, will not be considered further, and is now put up as a candidate for speedy deletion. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:29:45, 19 December 2022 review of draft by Hoenniboenni


Reviewers keep rejecting my edits no matter what I add (references compliant with all policies, references from academic venues, European commission, Government pages etc). I would like to know precisely, which parts of the draft are problematic and in which way. General recommendations like "check citations" are not helpful. Pages: Social robot and draft of QTrobot.

Hoenniboenni (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoenniboenni Reviewers are declining, not rejecting, it; rejection would mean it could not be resubmitted. Awards don't usually contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Leaving that out, the draft just documents the existence of the robot and what it does, it doesn't tell us what is significant or influential about it. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Wikipedia pages presenting other robots in order to learn from them. I learned from the page about Keepon robot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keepon that it is fully OK to tell about the robot's technical characteristics, purpose, awards (they even mention how much money they received) and availability (where you can purchase it). So I created a page about another robot that tells about the robot's purpose, awards and technical characteristics, and I collected academic (third-party, peer-reviewed, independent, in-depth etc.) references. However, these things were claimed to be promotional content (in the case of Keepon it was not classified as promotional). So I really need help to understand the difference. Why can Keepon robot talk about its awards on Wikipedia, and QTrobot cannot? Hoenniboenni (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoenniboenni As for other articles, please click on this: Other stuff exists. David10244 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:39:10, 19 December 2022 review of draft by Meiaz


Just wondering if you guys could give me a hand with this article/draft, I have added further references, what else should I do?

He is a Brazilian music producer and Latin Grammy winner. Daniel Ganjaman currently has an article in the Portuguese Wiki.

Meiaz (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Meiaz: one thing you must do is ensure that the contents are adequately supported by reliable sources; currently several paragraphs are unreferenced, as is eg. the person's DOB.
What you could/should do, also, is trim the long list in 'Production credits'. Wikipedia is not meant to catalogue someone's entire output, and only the most notable items should be included. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks **) Meiaz (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is it wrong to create production catalogues such as this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottz_production_discography Meiaz (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meiaz: it's not 'wrong'; discographies are by definition lists of works. But even they tend to me often summarised in the main article on the person (or band, etc.), and then a full listing provided in a separate article. The point being, you don't want a list of works to dominate an article — if someone has written only three books, by all means list them all; if they've written 300, mention the top 5-10 maybe, and list the lot in a separate article. In any case the list needs to serve some encyclopaedic purpose, not just be a catalogue for the sake of a catalogue. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the help **) Meiaz (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I made some further changes on the Daniel Ganjaman article, if you have some free time and could take a look. I would appreciate your input before I submit it for a draft review **) Meiaz (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:38:35, 19 December 2022 review of submission by SertabLeafar


Please explain which of the eight academic-specific criteria was not met.

SertabLeafar (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SertabLeafar The last reviewer said none of them were met. Let's turn this around, which one do you claim was met? 331dot (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

06:21:52, 20 December 2022 review of draft by 197.22.179.23



Hi,

Unfortunately, I doubt the credibility of Wikipedia pages, especially those who reject pages of media personalities or those known to raise some of Wikipedia's controls until you agree to publish a personal page.

Although there is a character who is not in line with Wikipedia, but they agree to her presence on the site. So, I found out about this when one of the Wikipedia administrators contacted me asking me to pay $700 to have my page published and (legally) on Wikipedia.

This is not the first time I have received an email with this subject. So where is the credibility of Wikipedia here? Please do not annul the opinion and respond to it with arguments that you provide it.

Best,

197.22.179.23 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you received such an email from someone claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator, then the person who wrote that email is almost certainly lying to you, scamming you, and trying to steal your money. Any ethical administrator will always reveal their Wikipedia username in any conversation about Wikipedia. Any administrator engaging in the type of unethical behavior you describe will quickly lose their status as an administrator. So, please disclose the so-called administrator's username. I am an administrator who does some consulting and training off-Wikipedia and I am always 100% transparent about my identity, both in the real world and on Wikipedia. I never edit Wikipedia for any paying clients. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What an extraordinary notion, thinking that you cannot trust Wikipedia, just because some scammer claims to be a Wikipedia administrator (which they almost certainly aren't, any more than I'm a Nigerian prince).
Besides, we don't publish "personal pages"; we publish encyclopaedia articles. If you wish to publish a personal page, you need to look elsewhere, such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one, whether paid or not, can guarantee that they can create an article that won't be deleted. You should not pay anyone to create an article (or to create and submit a draft) for you. David10244 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:50:49, 20 December 2022 review of draft by 109.76.158.6


Hi there! I'm inquiring as to what precisely is missing from this Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sololearn . While I know there is a "facebook" link cited, it goes to an official facebook company post, not a feed post. There are also a number of 3rd party links to other sources. I am unsure as to why it reads like an advertisement, as it appears to be an objective, informational article about the company. Please let me know if there is anything specific we can do to fix it!

109.76.158.6 (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly, this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article, it reads like something written by the company's marketing department (which, for all I know, it perhaps was).
The sources are a mix of routine business reporting, churnalism, interviews, primary and non-reliable sources. On a quick glance, there isn't a single one that contributes towards notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)\[reply]
At first glance, it reads very much like a press release. It's hard to quantify, but it's full of bite-size tidbits about the company and accolades of varying notability. You should also avoid having external links within the article itself. -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! 109.76.158.6 (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this company? 331dot (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:27:07, 20 December 2022 review of submission by Suedeakin01


 Courtesy link: User:Suedeakin01/sandbox

RE: High Water. How many references do you need? This film is yet to be released and therefore will be more articles etc in the future, which can be added to the citations. Suedeakin01 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suedeakin01: it's impossible to say, as there is no one right answer. Everything you state in the draft needs to be supported by reliable sources — or rather, the content of the draft/article should only ever be a summary of what reliable sources have said. So in that sense, you need however many references you need to make sure everything is appropriately referenced.
For the purposes of establishing notability by WP:GNG, you need "multiple" sources, which again isn't clearly defined anywhere (that I know of), but three is often mentioned as the minimum.
For a draft to be accepted, it must be sufficiently referenced with clearly established notability; anticipation of future sources, which may or may not materialise, isn't enough. This may mean having to postpone the review until such time as appropriate sources have become available. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased films usually do not merit articles, see WP:NFF. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:16, 20 December 2022 review of submission by Prof. Gard Jones

The notable artists of the Pacific Northwest of the United States are a small collective. R. Allen Jensen received over 13 feature articles in the major Seattle, Washington newspapers and many others in small town news papers of Everett, Washington and Bellingham, Washington over the course of his career. Jensen was the recipient of a Ford Foundation purchase award and received public art commissions from the Washington State Percent for the Arts program. His artwork is in the permanent collection of the Tacoma Art Museum, the Henry Gallery Museum, and the Museum of Northwest Art. Retiring as Professor Emeritus from Western Washington University his legacy continues to be reflected in the careers of former students such as Harold Hollingsworth. Prof. Gard Jones (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Prof. Gard Jones do you have any affiliation with R. Allen Jensen? S0091 (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
R. A. Jensen was a faculty member at a college I was associated with in the late 1970s. Upon his passing in 2022 his family hunted me down through social media asking if I would consider exploring R. A. Jensen as a subject of the college courses that I teach in art theory and contemporary practice. The Wikipedia entry is a by-product of interviews with surviving family members, university peers, journalists, and former students. Prof. Gard Jones (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prof. Gard Jones thanks for the transparency. You do have a conflict of interest, though likely slight, but it was brought up by other reviewers in their declines so wanted address it. In my review, what I see is largely local coverage about a local artist or routine coverage about exhibitions and the like. I did conduct my own research and found largely the same (searched Proquest, Newspapers.com and Gale). Also, usually if someone has made a notable impact, an obituary is published by a major newspaper written by a journalist which is not case here and is also bothersome from a notability perspective. Given my own research and the fact the draft had been already declined several times so had received the benefit of multiple reviewers' opinions, I rejected it as did not see how Jensen could meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you S0091.
Out of curiosity I must inquire as to your view perhaps being different had the first three declined submission not occurred? Those first three were the result of my not having properly structured my submission as opposed to any other concern. The only other declination was a question of possible conflict of interest. Prof. Gard Jones (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prof. Gard Jones Fair question. I would have declined rather than rejecting it. I also would have declined again with additional guidance had I thought it could meet the notability criteria, if not added sources myself to get it over the bar and accepted it. I do that sometimes too with drafts. S0091 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been, by far, the most helpful reviewer.
Jensen's widow and children are working with Seattle Art Museum curators for retrospective. There are several well connected collectors of Jensen's work that are supporting this project. Would this exhibition move the needle?
Thank you again. Prof. Gard Jones (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prof. Gard Jones I don't know, to be honest, but what rings alarm bells in my head is that collectors are involved....I mean talk about a COI. More PR equates to potentially more value as a collector. Even so, maybe that would help? Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity so there is time and even if deleted due to inactivity can be easily restored upon request. Wikipedia runs on WP:NODEADLINE so keep that in mind. S0091 (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prof. Gard Jones You said "The Wikipedia entry is a by-product of interviews", but articles need to be based on information that appears in reliable, published sources -- not including interviews. You say there is newspaper coverage, so that would be better... except S0091 says that particular coverage is not in-depth. Maybe more coverage will appear in the future.David10244 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David.
You are correct that the Wikipedia entry is a by-product, but of my research into R. A. Jensen's artwork themes. Interviews with others helped to fund this research. Once I had learned to edit my Wikipedia entry down to the proper tone and structure the resulting (last submission) is primarily the product of research in the Seattle Times News Paper, the Seattle Post Intelligencer News Paper, Seattle Magazine, writings of Tom Robbins, the New York Times obituary, as well as the research previously conducted by Dr. Sarah Clark-Langager.
The footnotes in my submission reference feature and in-depth reporting.
There exists additional in-depth essays on R. A. Jensen by Canadian authors, though I have Xerox copies of those essays I not been able to find proper citation to include them in my submission.
-Gard Jones Prof. Gard Jones (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:27, 20 December 2022 review of submission by Simiboom

How to make the article good for wikipedia? The references is ok, the info is ok, then what I have to edit? Simiboom (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simiboom: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. There is nothing for you to edit. (And just FYI, the info is not 'ok', and neither are the references.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

18:10:50, 21 December 2022 review of submission by Aditisat99


I edited my article to make it sound less advertising. I would like help to confirm that what I have written now aligns with Wikipedia's policies. Aditisat99 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing but blatant advertising and was rejected so will not be considered further, I suggest you find another topic. Theroadislong (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aditisat99 I see that you declared a paid editing relationship. I take this to mean you are employed by the organization. Unfortunately, they have given you an impossible task, likely due to a misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves and what they do, and where existence merits inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called "notability"- such as the definition of a notable organization. Articles here must summarize primarily what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic, demonstrating how it is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Not every organization merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. It depends on the sources, which cannot be press releases, announcements of routine activities, brief mentions, interviews, or other primary sources. We want to know what others say about the organization, not what it says about itself. Feel free to show this message to your superiors.
Also be aware that any article about your organization does not belong to the organization, nor can the organization exclusively dictate what appears there. Any information about the organization, good or bad, can be in an article about it as long as it appears in an independent reliable source. Please see this page for more information about the good reasons to not want an article. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

06:26:28, 22 December 2022 review of submission by Notanaccount1


Notanaccount1 (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Notanaccount1: do you have a question you wish to ask?
Your blank Draft:Say random stuff here was declined for... being blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:57:26, 22 December 2022 review of submission by শশী হাসপাতাল


শশী হাসপাতাল (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@শশী হাসপাতাল: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. You have been spamming us about your hospital several times now, and you really must stop before you find yourself sanctioned. (To say nothing of the fact that your content appears to be in Bengali, and this is the English-language Wikipedia.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:19, 22 December 2022 review of submission by RichardrahulFB


RichardrahulFB (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Because its about myself and people search for this.[reply]

I'm afraid that is not a valid reason for having an encyclopaedia article here, please also note that Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:15, 22 December 2022 review of draft by Vignetta del Dr. Mises


Vignetta del Dr. Mises (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vignetta del Dr. Mises It's difficult to help you as you do not ask a question. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:39, 22 December 2022 review of submission by Jolomonas


Hi, I don't understand why the draft is getting declined? I've red the "criteria for musicians and ensembles" for bands to check at least one of the criteria, and Dimwind check the boxes for at least two.

  1. 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
  2. 5. Has released two or more albums on an - independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable.


Jolomonas (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jolomonas The draft was now rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Some of your sources don't contribute to notability, and the others seem to be reviews of an album. That might merit the album an article, but not the band itself. If there are multiple published works about the band itself, they were not provided. If you have some, please appeal to the reviewer directly first. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:56, 22 December 2022 review of submission by Shipa.l9


Shipa.l9 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@shipa.l9: the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


December 23

03:42:00, 23 December 2022 review of draft by SUCHIFEN


hello, I would like to ask how to show our external links at the very bottom (references). It can only show 2 of them, when I clicked "reference links", but this page has more external links than that. We don't know how to add it. thank you!

SUCHIFEN (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@suchifen: the issue is that your sources are not enclosed in <ref> and </ref> tags. for more information on referencing, read help:referencing for beginners. lettherebedarklight晚安 08:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SUCHIFEN: when you say "we don't know", who is the "we"? Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single individual only, so if you are collaborating with someone they should be using their own accounts.
Also, what is your relationship with the subject of this draft? I have posted a message on your user talk page with advice on conflicts of interest (COI); please read and action it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:52:22, 23 December 2022 review of submission by Balchanamakowcbombe


Balchanamakowcbombe (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What shall I do to write on Wikipedia snice Wikipedia is not social media.

How can I use Wikipedia since it is not social media, I have more experience on social media rather than encyclopedia like Wikipedia and others so could you help me how can I use the Wikipedia. That means could you guide me to use Wikipedia. Balchanamakowcbombe (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balchanamakowcbombe Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. If you would like to help us out with this project to write an encyclopedia of human knowledge, please use the new user tutorial, and then contribute in topic areas that interest you.
If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Balchanamakowcbombe If you want, you can just read articles in Wikipedia. Thers is no requirement to do any more than that. It's not a place for casual chats with others, unless the purpose of the discussion is related to this encyclopedia and how to improve it. But feel free to ask any questions you want here! As 331dot says, you can also edit and improve existing articles, and (eventually) create new articles on notable subjects, if you wish. Creating new articles is hard, though. The "new user tutorial" phrase above is a clickable link with more information. David10244 (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:06:31, 23 December 2022 review of submission by Zohoe

This draft was rejected for having only two local newspaper articles as references. These articles give all the details known about this particular topic and it has been a subject of much interest as part of local Ohio folklore which is why I felt it was worthy of a wiki page. What do I need to add to have this article approved? Zohoe (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zohoe: it wasn't rejected, it was only declined, meaning you can resubmit once you've added more and/or better sources (rejection would mean you cannot resubmit). If such sources cannot be found, then this most likely doesn't warrant an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:11, 23 December 2022 review of submission by Sanana11

Hi, I was wondering why this got rejected, may I have more info on why this page got rejected please? Thank you in advance. Sanana11 (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanana11 You wrote a glowing, promotional piece about Mr. Karagezyan that is largely uncited. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone. An article about a person must neutrally summarize what independent relialbe sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about someone, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you wrote about yourself, this is discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
e/c unsourced and extremely promotional in tone, totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
okay? You did not have to delete my draft though. Sanana11 (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a webhost for such material. The content was not appropriate for this project and subject to deletion per the criterion indicated below. --Kinu t/c 21:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I have deleted the draft per WP:CSD#G11 as unsalvageable and blatantly promotional fluff. --Kinu t/c 21:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

13:11:08, 24 December 2022 review of submission by Sadhuguru

It is not ready for mainspace. Sadhuguru (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than that, it was rejected and won't be considered further. Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:28, 24 December 2022 review of submission by Tommy1053


Tommy1053 (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@tommy1053: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
erratically malformed duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 05:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

23:09:02, 24 December 2022 review of submission by Tommy1053


Tommy1053 (talk) 23:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


23:09:02, 24 December 2022 review of submission by Tommy1053 {{Lafc|username=Tommy1053|ts=23:09:02, 24 December 2022|link= 23:09:02, 24 December 2022 review of draft by Tommy1053 ==

23:36:36, 24 December 2022 review of draft by 80.233.92.95


What was specifically wrong?

80.233.92.95 (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the sources are insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Interviews, non-reliable sources, and churnalism do not count.
And please log into your account (assuming you're Wiki power creator). Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

15:34:40, 25 December 2022 review of submission by SukhrobBobiev


i want to publish my biography on Wikipedia

SukhrobBobiev (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SukhrobBobiev: for all the reasons why that's not a good idea, please see WP:AUTOBIO. If you are genuinely notable, someone will one day write about you; even then you shouldn't do this yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

07:14:52, 26 December 2022 review of submission by Amal Jaffer


Amal Jaffer (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@amal jaffer: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 07:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amal Jaffer: you don't ask a question, but your draft (such as it is) has been rejected and won't be considered further.
Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform for you to tell the world about yourself. Autobiographies are very strongly advised against, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:56:59, 26 December 2022 review of submission by Amal Jaffer


Amal Jaffer (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Jaffer You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. If you meet our special defintion of a notable person, and independent reliable sources choose to give you significant coverage, someone will eventually write an article about you, but it will not be yours to control. There are also good reasons to not want an article. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:45:51, 26 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Anujguptahmsc


Can anyone please help us why our draft is getting rejected?

Please advise us to make our CEO's profile active on Wikipedia.

We are trying to make our CEO's profile active on Wikipedia for so long but somehow it keeps getting rejected. Kindly guide us through the correct process.

Anujguptahmsc (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1129631717"