Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Did you know that the title for Need for Speed Unbound was accidentally revealed early on Electronic Arts' website? On the main page on 10/29/2022
This user is on the Wikimedia Community Discord.
This user is a recent changes patroller.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Addingcontentagain (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 6 January 2023. 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 29

15:11:06, 29 December 2022 review of draft by 70.123.18.238


Decision to to Decline resubmission. The information contained in this post will not be provided again in the future. 

Any attempts to represent this knowledge by other submission at a later date will result in legal action and enforceable removal of Intellectual Property.

Wikipedia.org no longer has the right to provide information on this subject matter. 70.123.18.238 (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account, IP editor, if you have one (eg. are you Dfox0317?).
This draft has been blanked, which will eventually result in its deletion.
You really did not want to make that legal threat, though. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:13, 29 December 2022 review of submission by Raylaur15


Raylaur15 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC) 16:07:13, 29 December 2022 review of submission by Raylaur15 I am interested in creating a Wikipedia page for the music ensemble Los Pleneros de la 21, a Nuyorican drum/dance group that have been active for forty years. They are mentioned in several Wiki articles, but to date they do not have their own page. There has been a good deal written about them, so there are plenty of primary and secondary sources to cite. This will be totally my initiative and I will receive no compensation from the group or anyone else for creating the page. I have been going to their concerts for a number of years, and know several of the members (as acquaintances, not close friends). Does that constitute a "Conflict of interest" according to Wikipedia rules? I would argue no, since I am not personal friends with anyone in the group, no one in the group has requested that I create a page, and I will receive no remuneration for my writing. But I am still new to Wikipedia editing, having only created on page so far, and want to follow the rules. Your advice here would be appreciated. best, Rayluar 15[reply]

@Raylaur15: based on your description, you probably do have a conflict of interest (COI); it is a bit borderline, but my advice is — if in doubt, declare it anyway, just to be on the safe side.
See WP:YFA for advice on creating the article, and WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks forthe advice DoubleGrazing. I will declare a COI.
peace,
Raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:ACE8:6133:B5AA:236F (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing: Thanks for the advice. Could you please give me the exact link to the template to declare a COI?
Or is there a place on the Talk or Homepage of my Sandbox where I can simply declare a COI??
Or should I wait to actually submit the article before declaring a COI?
thanks again,
Raylaur15 2603:7000:8106:B298:B1BD:E509:62B7:23A9 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:22, 29 December 2022 review of submission by Ytong28


Ytong28 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SecureAuth_Corporation[reply]

I am interested to create an article for SecureAuth Corporation. The draft have been declined. May I ask the experienced editors out there on how can I improve? Can i get some examples of how can I improve the article based on the feedback? I am not sure where to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytong28 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely on the Peacocky side. For starters, don't use anything that SecureAuth has provided either directly from their website or through something like Businesswire other than for the *very* uncontroversial stuff (like their date of founding, office locations and such). The Exact Patents that it holds are pretty much irrelevant. Other examples include "The platform combines desktop login, mobile, and SSO user experiences into a single, seamless, passwordless system to deliver the right user journey for each user." "As SecureAuth IdP originates from the SSO space and reflects a very strong federation and Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) story, it simplifies the integration of MFA products into a wide range of applications." Those aren't what belongs in an encyclopedia, they are from a marketing division.Naraht (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:53, 29 December 2022 review of submission by Donsylvester66

In any Domain or Industry, There is help associated. every time I submit I get one of these guys that decline my submission with no help. the only note is do not submit again. Why is it so complicated to have a genuine kind person to help me with the errors. or guide me and be clear on where is the issues and point them. do I need to submit Identification. I submitted websites as back up and sources. Please have someone with more patience to look in to this case. and help me fix what needs to be fixed to be able to publish on wikiPedia.

I appreciate your help. Regards, Don Donsylvester66 (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Karim_Abbista was rejected because it lacked reliable independent sources and showed no evidence of the topic being notable, see Wikipedia:Notability (sports) for the criteria.Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donsylvester66 It might not be clear, but there IS help in the decline notice. In the text of the notice, the words in color (blue, if they have not yet been clicked) are clickable links to much more information that explains what is needed. There are also clickable links in Theroadislong's reply here. David10244 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donsylvester66 The article also needs inline citations, not just general references at the end. See referencing for beginners. Without the inline citations, readers can't tell what reliable, published, independent source will verify each statement in the article. David10244 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:01, 29 December 2022 review of draft by River Epstein


Hi, the article has been changed, more concise, and with ref links added. Is the new edit still under examination? If it is please thanks to let me know where i can check the status. Its confusing on the application page.

I have been a fervent donator of wikipedia for years, at my level of income. I respect the quality of the work done to select articles, but I do have to notify the poor elements of answers gave by the moderator or person that check methodically the veracity of the facts.

Everything is made, it seems, to discourage people to submit articles, and in addition of that I find it curious that people who moderates or fact check and give decisions of what pass the criteria established by Wikipedia are proposing, for money, their service to get article posted. I am making ref to an email i received. It seems to me like the methods of the Cosa Nostra.

Looking forward to your answer, meanwhile I wish you all the best for the rest of the year and the year to come, and will give you my support to keep Wikipedia independent and free .

Best, River


River Epstein (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@River Epstein: The draft is indeed waiting for review, and you should absolutely not pay any money to anyone who emails you and ask for money to review it! Wikipedia editors, including those of us who review draft articles, are volunteers who do this as a hobby, and if someone asks you to pay them for a review, they are trying to scam you. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order – a draft that is clearly not well-sourced or has other obvious issues is often reviewed and declined quickly, but for more complicated cases it can take a while. I have just gone through the references in the draft and added bibliographic information; a list of bare URLs in the reference list means that the reviewer will have to spend a lot more time on the review, so making sure that the references contain at least a minimum of information is always a good idea. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:22, 29 December 2022 review of draft by Cid Zaire


Hello and thank you in advance for the help. I was trying o write more of the article before submitting but I don't know how to save a draft. Can you please help? I have also included information outside the local area now, this article has links to both the U.S. and the Netherlands. I appreciate your help. I promise to get better at this. Thank you! Cid Zaire (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cid Zaire "publish" equates to saving so when you edit something and click "publish changes" that is saving your changes. I will leave you some additional information about editing Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! If I have court documents, is there a way I can upload them privately, so you can see that they are reliable?
Would it be better to upload them to a site like Scribd?
I have also added non-local citations, they are information from the Netherlands. I am hoping this will get my article approved.
I appreciate the help. Cid Zaire (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cid Zaire Wikipedia does not host source material like court documents. In any event, court documents are primary sources that do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

08:57:44, 30 December 2022 review of submission by 61.0.147.134


61.0.147.134 (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admin, Kindly guide us in publishing this article on Wikipedia. I shall be highly thankful to you.

Warm Regards Ashwini Kumar Personal Assistant

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you are editing as the personal assistant of Mr. Kabir, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you choose to not have an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:03:18, 30 December 2022 review of draft by Ajax0714


I've made edits to my draft article after it was declined, but I wanted to reach out for additional perspectives so that it doesn't get declined again. This is my essential argument for notability - the subject has essentially been self-produced for her entire career (with only a few exceptions), but has achieved a level of recognition that led to her hosting the AVN Awards Show schedule for January 7th, 2023. I can't think of any other pornographic actress that has pursued an independent path with such success, so if anyone has any suggestions for bringing this out in the article better than I've done, or improving the sourcing, I'd appreciate it!! Currently, I'm waiting to see if the subject receives any additional mainstream press after the AVN Awards Show, and then including that and re-submitting the article. Thanks for your attention!

Ajax0714 (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I just read the fine point that the purpose of this help desk is not to get reviews, so I'll re-phrase - if I re-submit my draft after it's declined, does it have to be routed to another approver, or does it go to the same one? Thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajax0714 it depends. We are all volunteers and review whatever we want to (there is no routing or order) so it could be the same reviewer or a different one, though some choose to not review a draft they have previously reviewed. S0091 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I appreciate the response!! Since I'm an autoconfirmed user, would you recommend that I stick with the AfC process since I started out with it, or could I move the article to the main space myself if I feel like I've addressed all the issues for which it was declined? I have a feeling that the response will be that it's up to me, but I'd appreciate a recommendation - thanks! Ajax0714 (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajax0714 not a recommendation either way but you can. It will still go through New page patrol which can result in it being moved back to draft, nominated for speedy deletion (doubt that would happen) or nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion which goes through a discussion with editors to determine if it meets the notability guidelines. AfC reviewers are tasked with deciding the likelihood of a draft being deleted either via CDS or AfD so if declined it is because a reviewer thinks it would ultimately be deleted if accepted. What I will say is articles about those in the adult entertainment industry are more likely to be deleted at AfD if they do not have at least some independent in-depth mainstream media coverage about them (not interviews or announcements). AVN, XBIZ, etc. are generally considered poor sources for notability. S0091 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:13:31, 30 December 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 98.97.116.80


Why is my submission rejected? Then I do not have information,or I have to redo this article.

98.97.116.80 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

because your draft isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a random collection of questions. also your "reference" is some website trying to sell me something. this draft looks like spam. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

04:06:13, 31 December 2022 review of submission by ElevenHour

Hi, my submission got rejected for this page and there was no explanation besides the fact that "a Scott the Woz episode will never be notable". In the page there are references to both a primary and a secondary source. I don't believe the response I got originally were sufficient to reject the submission. ElevenHour (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ElevenHour: while it may be a bit of a reach, especially at the first review point, it's not an entirely unreasonable assumption that an individual episode like this might be inherently non-notable. If you wish to prove otherwise, the onus is on you to produce sources that clearly demonstrate notability. Currently one (at best) such source is cited, which is not enough. (Needless to say, the close primary source counts for naught.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a single episode of a series is not notable. Other series has pages for every episode, even when they don't have anything to say except for the plot and the reception, with the only source sometimes being reviews. I don't see why a page that has an actual source that isn't a review, should be rejected when other series gets pages when they don't have any more to say get them. So long, and thanks for all the fish (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:18:22, 31 December 2022 review of submission by 2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 for Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem

I'm requesting a re-review to except the Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem and put more sources because Draft: Los Angeles County Chair is now a page and Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem is equal to a Mayor Pro Tem of a county Page and it needs to go up quick but im having a hard time finding independent sources. 2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to "go up quickly"? We're not under any deadlines here. In any case, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the reason why it needs to go up quickly is because Los Angeles County Chair is now a page and so we are asking for help to consider the page it needs help and needs to be summitted.

2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NODEADLINE. Wikipedia's processes do not follow external deadlines, as DoubleGrazing said. David10244 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:40, 31 December 2022 review of submission by Fsceo


Fsceo (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fsceo You don't ask a question, but I assume this is related to the draft I have placed a link to. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:39, 31 December 2022 review of submission by RainyDayCafe

I intended to create a redirect page from the keyword "Stonewall Dutch" to the page Dutch Defence. However the draft was declined for being empty. Is this not allowed or did I do something wrong in creating the redirect? RainyDayCafe (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RainyDayCafe: it seems the draft was incorrectly declined as a blank (which it isn't), but nevertheless correctly declined in the sense that it is a request for a redirect, and those should be created via Wikipedia:Article_wizard/Redirects. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for the information! RainyDayCafe (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Request on 02:30:51, 1 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7


Can we get help with this draft page we need more sources and help with this Draft page

2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find sources for you. Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the point of having the assistance option if your not going to help most news pages you have to pay so help us find sources 2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:37:31, 1 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7


I Need help with Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem because Draft: Los Angeles County Chair is now a page and Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem is equal to a Mayor Pro Tem of a county so i need help it needs to go up quick but im having a hard time finding independent sources.

2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since you asked about this earlier. You'll need to tell us the source of your urgency, as Wikipedia has no deadlines. 331dot (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did tell you the urgency the Draft:Los Angeles County Chair is now a page and we need Draft:Los Angeles County Chair Pro Tem out its a sister page to Los Angeles County Chair 2603:8001:2902:64F4:7C17:B0FA:1D89:8AE7 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove comments that have been replied to. 331dot (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:28, 1 January 2023 review of submission by Chetu1


Chetu1 (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetu1: you don't ask a question, but your draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@chetu1: your draft has been deleted under speedy deletion criterion g11. if you wish to continue, start a new draft. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lettherebedarklight I am not certain that's the best advice to give here, as it doesn't address the advertising issue. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eh, yeah. striked. lettherebedarklight晚安 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chetu1 (ec) You don't ask a question, but I deleted the draft as blatant advertising. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

03:43:26, 2 January 2023 review of draft by Nalon22


Please tell me what is wrong with this page? Thank you very much Nalon22 (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nalon22: did you read the decline notice (esp. the grey box inside the large pink one) and the reviewer's comment below it? They provide a pretty clear and comprehensive account of what is wrong with it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:51:53, 2 January 2023 review of submission by EvergreenStudio

Hey bro, please tell me what to do to improve my wikipedia page for my show. I am ready for any advice you give me. Thanks. Btw this is the guy who made the “Cooking with Jeremy” page. EvergreenStudio (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenStudio: your draft has been rejected as non-notable and won't be considered further, "bro".
You must formally declare your conflict of interest in this subject.
Also, you almost certainly need to change your username, which is promotional and implies shared use. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@EvergreenStudio: Has anybody who is completely unconnected to yourself written about your YouTube show in detail? Since you released your first episode yesterday, I am guessing the answer is no, but I could of course be wrong. But if there are no independent sources, Wikipedia cannot have an article about it. More info in the notices on your user talk page, and in the "decline" and "reject" templates on the draft itself. Since the draft has been rejected, there is no option for you to resubmit it. --bonadea contributions talk 10:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. But i haven’t uploaded my Youtube Show “yesterday”. It was in December 1. Thank you though for your time to respond. EvergreenStudio (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:49, 2 January 2023 review of submission by Fringecreatives

I want to create a page for the festival that my NGO runs. I create an article (as I don´t see how it could be done otherwise), submitted it to be reviewed and was denied publication. Iceland Airwaves is the similar festival and I don´t see the difference between their references and mine. The refusal from Wikipedia´s reviewing group was based on not enough credible references - S0091. Could you please explain?

Fringecreatives (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fringecreatives Please read other stuff exists. It could be that this other article is inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.
You must make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure. Regarding the draft, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:29, 2 January 2023 review of submission by 66.75.89.168


Hello, Just curious as to why my article on Edward Sullam was not accepted. He was a prominent architect in Hawaii but not internationally well known. Could this be why? He was part of the mid-century modern movement in architect. He passed away this part year. Thanks for your thoughts. Karen Buzzard

66.75.89.168 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account and/or link to the draft you're referring to, so that we know what you're talking about. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:50:53, 2 January 2023 review of draft by JAHendler


The notable person in this article is one of the very early woman investigative journalists in the US, has worked with journalists (especially women around the world), and has worked for top papers and been on teams awarded major prizes. However, as a journalist, she has written the key monographs (and earlier the articles), has edited the major contributions, etc -- for a journalist, objectivity and anonymity (editors not bylined) make it hard to find secondary sources discussing someone, rather than her own work. Further, many of the investigative articles themselves are either in publications that did not yet have web pages when she was working for them (so I cite copies in various archives) and some of the others are behind paywalls -- similarly, I have listed the major papers she has worked for (often the first woman hired before the 1990s) but the bylines of these papers can be found in microfiche in the library -- not on the web. Of particular note is that she was heavily involved in the empowerment of women journalists in Bosnia, Serbia, and the middle east, but again, this was part of her work for IRE and OCCRP and thus it is hard to point to specific instances naming her (esp as in some of those areas, having her name published would have led to expulsion, death threats (which she did receive) etc.... 

 Of the various entries i've made, the rest were for scientists (before I became more involved in policy) and thus finding the references and awards and such is much easier.  I hope this explanation will help to explain this article -- I do believe I have now met the requirements as stated, but hope this note helps to explain why thie particular journalist is so important.  My assumption is that once a base article is written, the people involved in the Bosnia and Herzogavinia areas, in particular, will be able to contribute to the growth of the article.


JAHendler (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and your question is...? lettherebedarklight晚安 02:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

03:29:44, 3 January 2023 review of submission by The Storyteller Sudarshan

I work for Sudarshan The Storyteller who is a popular photographer in South India. Creating an article about him is always something we wanted to make sure his assistants and other young budding photographers know of his work and follow him for his guidance for photography. Please help us create a page for him. Thank you.

The Storyteller Sudarshan (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@the storyteller sudarshan:
declare your conflict of interest. see here for how.
once you have done so, then we can continue. lettherebedarklight晚安 05:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Storyteller Sudarshan So you are not the storyteller? Your username implies that you are. David10244 (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused now. I was told that only a second party can create a username for him and hence I used my team name to create a wiki page for him. I represent the team of The Storyteller. Should I create it from my own ID or create a user ID with his name? 2405:201:E013:4811:F1CE:1915:9D27:B02F (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To simplify a bit, a second party (not himself) should create the draft of the article, and submit that draft to be reviewed.
A username is separate from an article (or a draft) name. You could have chosen a username like "Green Banana" or "Mary1234" and then created a draft named "The Storyteller Sudarshan" to be reviewed. You are trying to create an article about him (not for him); you are not trying to create a username for him.
A Wikipedia username (user account) must only be used by one person, and the password should not be shared with anyone else. Teams cannot share one account.
Since you are not The Storyteller Sudarshan, you should click here and ask to change your username to something else (the new username must not sound like a company or a team; it represents you as a person). You do not need to use your actual name.
Then you need to follow the instructions here to declare a conflict of interest as related to The Storyteller Sudarshan, as mentioned above. These steps are not as complicated as they sound.
After those two things are done, you can then ask again for advice here, as lettherebedarklight said. Good luck. David10244 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:48:55, 3 January 2023 review of submission by BappleBusiness

This article was rejected by User:Slywriter and I would like a more in-depth explanation and possible reevaluation. First they said, Multiple rejections have been ignored for this to be resubmitted. This is simply incorrect. The article has gone under intense revision by myself and User:PantheonRadiance since the previous submission months ago, following the instructions mentioned by previous reviewers. These revisions also resolved most of your other concerns.

Unless there is some sort of formatting problem that I'm missing, the claim that the Sourcing is terrible doesn't make sense. All sources in the article are reliable, demonstrated through inclusion on WP:RS/PS, WP:RS/N, or WP:VG/RS (I've checked once again, and the very few that were not included are now removed from the article). It was also said that the subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia; this may have been correct previously, but the plethora of reliable sources added to the article certainly demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG. You said that external links is a farm of social media sites, and this would normally be cause for concern, but since he is notable for being an internet personality, WP:ELOFFICIAL overrules this. Nevertheless, I removed all links but his YouTube, Twitch, and his website.

I don't see valid reasons for the draft, in its current state, to be denied. Help is greatly appreciated.BappleBusiness[talk] 03:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BappleBusiness Note that the issue is not necessarily the sources themselves, but their content. What are your three best sources with significant coverage of this person? 331dot (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably first identify the October 2022 Variety interview and March 2021 Polygon article as evidence of substantial coverage. He is also the subject of many articles by PC Gamer ([1]), Kotaku ([2], [3]), Dot Esports ([4], [5]), which are reputable according to WP:VG/S and WP:RS/N. BappleBusiness[talk] 01:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Time looks to be a passing mention, Variety is an interview, Polygon is a passing mention Several sources are tweets, YouTube videos or stat sites. The attempt to document every single published mention makes it impossible to find what sources actually contribute to notability. So I stand by the statement and I also do not see why anything beyond their YouTube and Twitch would count as proper External Links as we are not their marketing department. Slywriter (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are not disallowed on Wikipedia (WP:PST). Even so, the primary sources are used in conjunction with secondary sources—except for subscriber/follower counts, a context where the usage of primary sources and reputable stat sites is commonplace. As for significant coverage, see my other reply. BappleBusiness[talk] 01:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are only okay in certain circumstances, and never to establish notability. "In conjunction" with secondary sources is original research 331dot (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary sources were not being used to establish notability. The primary sources were either for follower/subscriber/view counts, or they were citing what was linked in the secondary sources they were paired with. These pairings were not original research, because the citations were not adding any additional information; they were only for convenience of the reader. Nevertheless, I have now removed all primary sources except those for the aforementioned counts. BappleBusiness[talk] 03:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BappleBusiness Interviews have limited use, and don't contribute to establishing notability, because Wikipedia is interested in what others have published about him, not what he has said. David10244 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do contribute to establishing notability when it contains secondary, independent coverage (WP:INTERVIEWS). The Variety article in question does this in spades, and so it contributes to establishing notability. BappleBusiness[talk] 08:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there independent coverage in the Variety article?Reads like a typical interview, I see no independent reporting of substance. Also please review the AfD as many of the sourcesa, content and events discussed twere already deemed by the community not to establish notability Slywriter (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
INTERVIEWS is an essay, not policy. Even if it were, it's certainly true there can be non-interview stuff in a story that contains an interview- but you haven't shown that. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, free to disregard us and place it in the encyclopedia yourself, as this process is voluntary for most- but it would then be at risk of an AfD discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot and Slywriter: Hi, I was one of the editors who also added sources to the draft alongside BappleBusiness. GeorgeNotFound IS notable because there are multiple in-depth, secondary, and independent sources written about him and his web content per WP:BASIC and WP:WEB. Using the sources BappleBusiness identified, here's a source table proving his notability. Keep in mind this is a small selection and there are more reliable sources that exist.

Source assessment table prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Kotaku - June 3, 2021
 Yes Did not respond to request for comment, nor is he affiliated with any staff at Kotaku. Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes In-depth article containing secondary sourced summary and synthesis about a Twitch stream he made, which describes web content he himself made per WP:WEBCRIT. ✔ Yes
Dot Esports - October 11th, 2022
 Yes Unaffiliated with publication. Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes In-depth, secondary source article about GeorgeNotFound's background, including his career, analysis on his video content, and what led him to become an internet personality (multiple credible claims of importance) ✔ Yes
PC Gamer - January 13, 2020
 Yes Yes Per WP:VG/RS Yes Secondary source summary of a video George himself made describing one of his videos - suitable per WP:WEBCRIT. ✔ Yes
Variety - October 13, 2022
 Yes IS Independent - GeorgeNotFound isn't affiliated with anyone from Variety. See comment below. Yes Per WP:RSPSS and WP:VG/RS. Yes Despite containing some primary sourced quotes, most of the material is secondary thoughts/analysis from the author. In-depth article discussing his YouTube content, background and impact and their other future endeavors, while also adding secondary material contextualizing his popularity in terms of internet fame and the emergence of social media and its influence on society. In-line with investigative journalism akin to 60 Minutes, per WP:INTERVIEWS. ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Also, we need to clarify something. Interviews are not automatically non-independent - this is a mistake most editors continuously make because they fail to distinguish between ones with a vested interest through relationships with the person being interviewed (such as Q/A interviews), and in-depth secondary sources with extra analysis thrown in. The WP:INTERVIEWS essay was invoked because none of WP's guidelines on independence make any mention of ALL interviews being non-independent. That essay essentially states that interviews should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, because they may range in independence and primary/secondary material. And evaluating the merits of the Variety article, I find it to be independent and contribute to his notability. The draft should've never been rejected in the first place. PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PantheonRadiance I'm sorry but I do not think your assessments are correct. Interviews are the person speaking about themselves- having a vested interest or relationship with the interviewer is not relevant(that would be a WP:COI issue, not an independence issue). If this person is speaking about their video, that would potentially be valid content for an article about the video, but not him. I'm not sure why people are so invested in this draft but if you truly feel that five reviewers and us here are in error, it sounds like you should roll the dice with AfD and place it in the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I'm wondering why so many editors have contributed to this draft- to find a draft a user must generally already be aware that it exists, is there discussion of it somewhere, on or off wiki? 331dot (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:03:01, 3 January 2023 review of submission by PLBounds


PLBounds (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Draft:The_Foundation_for_Research_on_Information_Technologies_in_Society?action=edit Good morning, my original draft of this page was declined. I made changes as indicated -- removing external links and toning down "self-promoting" language -- and resubmitted. Regarding the "paid contributions" aspect, this is a conundrum -- the IT'IS Foundation and its partner institutions do important work that should be known about, but these institutions are currently unknown to the general public. I am writing the first drafts of pages because I know about and have access to the information. Further "cleanup" to scrub self-promoting formulations is absolutely welcome. (Also, I am available to act as an editor on other articles...). The next page on my list of pages to draft is for Schmid & Partner Engineering AG (SPEAG). Among other things, SPEAG manufactures instruments that measure the amount of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones and other wireless devices to assess whether the devices are in compliance with safety regulations. Chances are that phones used by yourselves and everyone you know were tested with SPEAG equipment. Doesn't the wikipedia-reading public deserve to know about this? How should I proceed? Should I draft only stubs of pages to start with then flesh them out later? PLBounds (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PLBounds: it may help if I clarify an important principle behind Wikipedia's publishing policy. We are never the first outlet for disseminating new information; we only summarise what other sources have already published. Therefore, if your subject is "unknown to the general public", meaning there isn't information publicly available about it, then Wikipedia is not the means for rectifying that, no matter how "important" their work may be. Another way of saying the same is this: if you can cite sufficient (in quality and quantity) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, you may have an article included in the 'pedia; if you cannot, then you may not. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:54:39, 3 January 2023 review of submission by 41.210.147.95


41.210.147.95 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:19:56, 3 January 2023 review of draft by VladGSanford


I don't know what I'm doing. I just wanted to submit a Wikipedia page for my old band. I'm obviously doing something wrong as it was declined.

VladGSanford (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VladGSanford: the reason why your draft was declined is that it is effectively unreferenced, and for that reason there is also no evidence that the subject is notable; both are cardinal offences in the Wikipedia context.
Also (and this wasn't a reason for the decline) if you have an external relationship with the subject, then this gives rise to a conflict of interest (COI) which needs to be disclosed. I will post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VladGSanford If you can find published material where others have written about your former band, you can write a draft based on what those publications say. If you can't find sources like that, I'm afraid you won't be able to create an article that will be accepted. Good luck. See this info for more information. David10244 (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

03:08:36, 4 January 2023 review of draft by SigurdsCross


What did the critic mean that surname pages aren't in line with what Wikipedia does? There are thousands. If "The Thursday Night Massacre" can get a page in less than a day and all of the surnames I linked have pages, why would my last name not be approved? Thanks. SigurdsCross (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SigurdsCross: the answer to your question "What did the critic mean..." inevitably lies with the 'critic'; perhaps you could enquire with them directly?
FWIW, it is true that we do have articles on surnames (eg. Taylor (surname)); it is also clearly the case that we cannot have an article on every surname. Whether we should have one on 'Saviers' depends first and foremost on whether sources can be found that show the name (in its own right) to be notable. Of the ones cited in your draft, I would say only the book, The Seaver Genealogy, looks like it provides significant coverage of the subject, but whether it is independent (and/or reliable) enough, I don't know, seeing as it has been written by someone with at least some direct interest in the matter. In any case, it alone isn't enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires multiple sources. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:04:27, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Tamtrible


Previous reviewers have taken issue with the similarities between this article and the "list of herbs and spices", which... I have issue with, but it seems like a valid concern, at least. This reviewer said the subject is "not notable". That seems... not a reasonable criticism.

Some non-Wikipedia results on searches for "plants used as herbs" and "plants used as spices": https://www.anniesremedy.com/chart.php?gc=b101 https://www.healthline.com/health/most-powerful-medicinal-plants https://www.nhp.gov.in/introduction-and-importance-of-medicinal-plants-and-herbs_mtl https://www.nlm.nih.gov/about/herbgarden/list.html https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/herbs/ https://list.ly/list/1UDP-top-10-plants-used-as-spices https://plantsbank.com/spice-plant-10-easy-herbs-and-spices-to-grow-at-home/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33809800/ https://www.yaclass.in/p/science-state-board/class-6/plants-in-daily-life-16198/the-plants-in-human-welfare-11743/re-cd6e3777-ad54-4b1b-9359-2afbb98e44ba https://www.thespruce.com/grow-your-own-spices-3269653 https://www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/botany/botany-general/herbs-and-spices

So, I'd say that it's a topic that a lot of people are talking about to at least some degree, so I fail to see how it's not "notable".

Tamtrible (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamtrible: what is your question regarding this rejected draft? Please bear in mind that this help desk is for assistance with drafts currently undergoing the AfC process, not for debating the rationale for articles more generally. If it hasn't been suggested before (and I seem to recall it has, although could be wrong of course) then let me suggest that you might wish to bring this up at Talk:List of culinary herbs and spices to see if there is consensus for eg. splitting the contents or changing the way the topic (of that and/or any other articles, possibly new ones) is delineated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question is... how is the topic "not notable"?
As far as bringing it up at the list of culinary herbs and spices... I have. To no avail. My page now has considerably more information than the original, in a more useful format, but... the only way I could "improve" the existing article with my article is by, well, basically replacing, or at least almost entirely duplicating, it. So, I have tried to ask on the talk page as suggested, and gotten... a minimal response. And I can't make my table back into a non-draft-space page since it was rejected before, except by going through channels. So I keep trying, in hopes that someone will either agree to let it be its own thing, or generate enough consensus to replace the existing page with my page, or tell me what I need to do to make my page into a different enough page to allow it to be its own thing, or whatever. Going round and round on that angle is one thing, but claiming that the topic is "not notable" is... a bit silly, to me.
Does that make sense?
If you want, I can dredge up links to the prior discussions on the topic. Tamtrible (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:08:48, 4 January 2023 review of submission by 223.176.112.126


223.176.112.126 (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or personal blogging platform. If you wish to tell the world about yourself, try LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:36, 4 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Botan Hamza Hasan



Botan Hamza Hasan (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Botan Hamza Hasan You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:32:04, 4 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Vardyhero


My article Retro Gaming Expo has been rejected three separate times (I believe unfairly) regarding referencing. The references provide a mix of both primary and secondary references, and some of the references although being just passing comments regarding the event, still to emphasise the points being made well (ie one reference supports the statement that the event has live music, and the supporting article is that of a band commenting on how they will be playing at the event on a given date, and the music they will play. This was commented on as not sufficient). The next edit requested this be reviewed, and instead the article was commented on as 'being too much of an advertisement'. Other than one statement mentioning the popularity of the event causing expansion, the whole article is nondescript, and comments entirely on the history of the event and the features it holds. It would be impossible to write about any event without this occurring. I would appreciate a fair take on this, as other wikipedia pages of similar natures are far less in-depth, far less securely referenced, yet have made the cut. I am beginning to get very frustrated and believe that posting on Wikipedia must only be for an elite group, who hold the power currently. It does not encourage free information/education sharing such as the site aims to achieve. Please review this for me and let me know your thoughts. Vardyhero (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vardyhero As someone associated with this event, you have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not for merely sharing information. This is not a mere database where existence warrants a mention; this is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called "notability". This isn't a place to merely tell about a subject and what it does. As an encyclopedia, an article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets (in this case) the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. You have done a nice job citing the existence of the event and what occurs there- the trouble is, that's not what we are looking for. We are looking for independent reliable sources that have written on their own about the significance or influence of this event as they see it. None of the sources you have do that. I fear that you are too close to your event to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. This isn't about power or the elite, it's about our guidelines. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:26, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Andrevan

Meets WP:GNG so why was it declined again? Andre🚐 13:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC) Andre🚐 13:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: the reviewer's assessment was that it does not meet GNG. If you believe otherwise, please highlight the three strongest sources and satisfy the criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Andre🚐 13:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan The first two sources are largely interviews with the subject; interviews do not establish notability because it is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, reading the essay Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability.... nterview material is often interspersed with the interviewer's own secondary analysis and thoughts I think a few of these interviews might fall in that category, but regardless: This source [13] is not an interview at all, and this source [14] only has a few small quotes but is mostly not an interview. Andre🚐 13:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An essay is not policy. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware of that, but what is the relevant policy that says interviews should not be counted at all? Andre🚐 13:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say interviews "should not be counted at all"; interviews cannot be used to establish notability. WP:GNG requires sources be independent of the subject, which an interview by definition is not. 331dot (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But what about an article that is independent of the subject and also interviews the subject? E.g. the first article I linked, by Rito P. Asilo - Entertainment Editor, Philippine Daily Inquirer, contains descriptions such as The six-part HBO Asia Originals production “Food Affair with Mark Wiens,” which kickstarts a three-year collaboration among Warner Bros. Discovery, Singapore Tourism Board and Zhao Wei Films, sees the charming YouTube sensation going on an invigorating journey of food obsession as he shines the spotlight on a country’s diverse cuisine—from fine dining to hawker fare.... Mark, who has more than 9 million subscribers worldwide and 2 billion views on YouTube This isn't material coming out of the subject's mouth but is being written by the reporter. Andre🚐 14:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan But that is not significant coverage, another requirement. It just documents a specific fact, which is important, but does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, ok. I think there's a bit of gray area here, but we can agree to disagree. It's an article called "Mark Wiens makes the big jump from YouTube to mainstream TV" which is pretty much entirely focused on the subject. Part of it is an interview yes, but it's significant and independent in my view. But I don't want to die on that hill. Andre🚐 14:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" goes into detail about what is influential or important about the topic. I'm not seeing what is influential or important about this person from that source other than "they moved to television"- but that may be for the community to decide. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's basically a food vlogger who was able to parlay his success into his own restaurant and a TV show deal. Honestly, I did not even know that he had an HBO show until yesterday. But he's essentially an Anthony Bourdain-esque figure who has spawned a number of imitators and a whole subgenre of youtube videos. And he has managed to pick up some coverage in the process - more than what I would usually expect merits an article. Andre🚐 14:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are addressed in the WP:Primary section. specifically in note c, of the WP:Original research policy and WP:GNG states secondary independent sources are required. WP:Independent sources is actually just an essay but it is cited enough by the community that it leans toward a de-facto guideline. And @Andrevan no one will ever come close to Anthony Bourdain. :) S0091 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case they are independent news media reports about the person. I can see the argument for being primary news reporting close to an event. But for example an independent news article that happens to quote the subject - I wasn't aware of a policy-based argument that it's not independent due to interviewing the subject. Andre🚐 17:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is to strip out anything attributed to him (quotes, or things like "he says", "according to him", "he claims", etc.), statements that are clearly emanating from the subject or promotional fluff. There will also always be a brief introduction/background about the subject being interviewed which is generally considered trivial coverage. The first source listed above does have a little more meaningful content but the second and third are not useful. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources 13 and 14 are clearly based on a publicity campaign promoting his new HBO series. We need to see what serious, independent journalists have written of their own volition, rather than regurgitating press materials and 'media roundtables'. Besides, The Sun Daily is considered non-reliable.
I asked for three sources, not nine, precisely so that we can evaluate the best sources, not having to plough through piles of refbombing. It is the best sources that need to satisfy the GNG criteria, otherwise notability is in jeopardy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a review of the same article by CaptainEek from 2 years ago where they wrote the current sourcing has three good sources in it that seem to meet GNG. That predates the HBO series announcement. I apologize about "The Sun Daily" as I did not realize that was an unreliable source. If the reasoning is that they are interviews I guess that makes sense, but I wish one of the reviewers would have written that before. Andre🚐 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan I am willing to accept this draft in its current state. After that the community can decide. I would have done so already but it is create protected. @DoubleGrazing I understand the points you are making. Even so I believe that this has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion on the references that appear to be worthwile 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for weighing in, and your thoughts. I appreciate that either way. Andre🚐 14:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan If it ends up at AfD then the community can decide. If it does not, then the community has decided. If it does not get to mainspace then the community is not deciding, however many reviewers add wisdom to this discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent Being create protected is usually a decent indicator that the subject is not notable, as it's create protected due to repeated attempts at creation. 331dot (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article about a popular Youtuber and restauranteur, likely being repeatedly recreated by fans like myself who think the subject deserves an article and don't understand why he doesn't have one. Andre🚐 14:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan Fame is not the same as notability- something which most fans who come here to write about persons they are fans of don't understand. 331dot (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware of that, but I happen to think that Mark Wiens is both famous and notable. We have a List of YouTubers and there are quite a few people on there less notable than Mark Wiens in my estimation. Andre🚐 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an WP:OSE issue. If they are not notable, they will eventually be addressed. Best wishes to you. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, I don't want to make an OTHERSTUFF argument at all. However in my view Wiens is notable, and the reason why he is perennially recreated is because the notability bar is low enough that other similar individuals such as Trevor James (traveler) can survive being tagged since 2019, while Wiens is gate-kept by NPP reviews despite apparently having sourcing. But, I appreciate the engagement on this and your time. Andre🚐 15:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan The draft is held up at present by AFC, not NPP. Assuming acceptance (were I able to do it) I would also ensure that NPP took a look. I anticipate an early visit to AfD.
In real terms none of this discussion matters despite strongly held opinions. It can be accepted and may or may not survive. If it survives, then good; if it is deleted, then good, because Wikipedia is improved either way. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I meant AFC sorry. Neurons crossed. Anyway, thanks for your attention to this and we'll see what happens I guess. Andre🚐 16:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People do not "deserve" articles- they merit articles, based on notability and whether or not they have significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that is semantic, I am using "deserve" to mean "merit." Andre🚐 14:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant it that way, okay, but many people mean "deserve" as in a topic should get an article to honor or recognize their work- which is not what we are about. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that. I am not a new user. If I didn't think he was notable I would not be advocating for the creation of his article or at least an AFD hearing for it. Andre🚐 14:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Normally I would agree with you. My feeling, though, is that it is worth a punt. I am but one voice, and I seem to be in dissent, but I have a genuine belief that this scrapes in, despite my personal distaste for such "personalities" and articles on them. Anyway, I have said with goodwill what I felt important to say and will leave it to others now. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent I respect your viewpoint. Thanks for offering it. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair. I've no issue with that, FWIW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're all set with sources on this page, to pass this process, only about three are needed. We're only interested in your three best sources(which I believe you have already offered above). 331dot (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:40, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Genefpolicinski


Genefpolicinski (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC) The material was lifted from my personal pages by Discovery Park of America for use in a press release, with my permission. The original source/information is owned by me, and thus, I retain all rights to use.[reply]

Genefpolicinski I assume this is about Draft:Gene Policinski Yes, that's it- you retain the rights, this means that the content is incompatible with Wikipedia, whose licence allows reuse with attribution for any purpose(including commercial). If you wish to retain the rights, you can't put the content on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, people are discouraged from writing about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Genefpolicinski As 331dot rightly implies, if you are willing to license your material in a way that allows anyone to reuse it for any purpose, including commercial purposes, feel free to include it on Wikipedia. Note that the autobiography policy still applies. David10244 (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:20:11, 4 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Gracy Mugi


I got most of information on the cited sources about the person. I did not know how I could paraphrase them yet it is not my own work. Secondly, I don't know I could quotes in the wiki talk text. It is my first article and I would like it to be published as I learn a lot for my next publications.

Gracy Mugi (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gracy Mugi Will it be okay if someone places it in Draft space, and not on your user page, which is for the named person to tell about themselves as an editor? 331dot (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes no problem. It can be done, all I care more is that it is published. Thanks Gracy Mugi (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gracy Mugi When the draft is in "draft space", it is not yet published. When you think it is ready to be reviewed to see if it meets all of Wikipedia's requirements, and it is properly sourced (click here), click the "submit" button in the draft. Let us know if you don't see a submit button. After it is submitted, a reviewer will review the draft and let you know if if needs more work. The wait for an article to be reviewed can be a few days, weeks, or (sometimes) 3 or 4 months. We hope it doesn't take that long. Good luck, and ask again if you have more questions. David10244 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:26, 4 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20


Tojoroy20 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't claim any information that isn't confirmed by a source. In this case, it doesn't need in-depth reference because it only provides information which is very basic about the subject. References sufficiently substantiate the facts mentioned or stated about the subject. Some articles may not be directly about the subject, but they do not disprove the facts mentioned. All the other articles about Colleges of Tripura, for example Government Degree College, Amarpur, Government Degree College, Dharmanagar, Government Degree College, Gandacharra, Tripura Institute of Technology and all of them don't have any references or max to max one or two. In comparison to those, this is far better in terms of sources. Why those articles ( mentioned ) are qualified but this one ? Just the two lines are not enough to describe why it isn't accepted ?

Tojoroy20 You are in error. An article is meant 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. Mere existence is insufficient to merit an article- we are interested in what outside sources say is important or significant about the college. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read other stuff exists; it could be that these other articles you cite are also inappropriate, and simply not addressed yet. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:51, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Fico Puricelli

Greetings. I tried to publish this article, but I was told it has a few issues. That's why I need help, or someone else to take over, please. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fico Puricelli: this draft has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Now I understand what went wrong. I deleted the unnecessary things. If you want, you can check it again. If it fails again, then you can delete it. Thank you for everything. Fico Puricelli (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fico Puricelli If you want this draft to be reviewed again, click the blue "Submit for Review" button. David10244 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:35, 4 January 2023 review of submission by Fico Puricelli


Fico Puricelli (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dup of above section. David10244 (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:48, 4 January 2023 review of submission by LabourTO


Hello! I do not understand why my article has been rejected. I am requesting that you please reconsider. You may see the history of feedback and assume I am mindlessly or irresponsibly re-submitting, however, this is not the case. The article has evolved substantially as I now better understand the feedback. I have taken great care to refine the article pursuant to several rounds of feedback, and strongly believe that the article now meets all of Wikipedia's standards.

Re: Notability (This is cited as the reason for the rejection) Given the volume of consumer publications that have published articles covering the chain, its rapid expansion and business growth, and coverage about its socially responsible corporate approach, it is certainly notable. In fact, the author of one of the articles cited (Diane Galambos in The Hamilton Spectator) wrote about how she'd "always meant to visit", and then finally did so when a newer location opened. This suggests that the brand had already built up noteworthiness, even before her published article furthered this notability.

Re: Paid Promotion / Editing (In case this is a question) At one point in the process, I received a question about whether I have any vested interest in the article. To confirm, the answer is no. I am a neutral party - simply put, a happy customer.

Re: Advertising (In case this is a consideration) At one point in the process, I received feedback that the article sounded too ad-like. Great care has been taken to ensuring all sentences are factual articulations of the content within the articles. The cited articles themselves are positive, so the statements in this article are, by extension, not not positive.

I have reviewed countless Wikipedia articles about other restaurant chains, and am failing to see any difference at all in the 'notability', tone, sources, of any of those articles. In fact, my article about Pür & Simple has many more public articles cited than some others that have already been accepted and published by Wikipedia. Some examples of other published restaurant articles that I think are far less notable include: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tha%C3%AF_Express -- Literally all sources are either on their own website, in their own press release, or a trade publication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey%27s_Seafood_Restaurants -- One source, and their own website to boot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Grill_(restaurant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikes_(restaurant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cora_(restaurant) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_%26_Florentine

If these are all notable enough for publication (and there are so many more just like this), I truly believe that Pür & Simple is notable too, and worthy of publishing.

I ask that you please reconsider the rejection. Thank you!


LabourTO (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists, most of those articles should be deleted as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Thank you. I understand your response to me questioning how other articles compare. Do you have any response or suggestion in respect of the rest of my commentary about how the subject is, indeed, notable? The reason cited for the article's rejection is that it is not notable. I believe I've outlined a detailed explanation for why it is, indeed, notable. How can I go about having the article reconsidered or allowed to be back in draft? LabourTO (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamiebuba - Please see my comments and questions here, further to your rejection of my article about Pür & Simple. (You can ignore the last section where I reference other articles, as @Theroadislong has already explained those are irrelevant.) My main comment is to suggest that the article does indeed meet notability criteria. Can you please advise? Thanks! LabourTO (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of wether this is notable, it is still just blatant advertising eg. " Pür & Simple serves a wide range of breakfast and lunch menu options, including omelettes, Benedicts, pancakes, sandwiches, and skillets" "many new restaurant openings in 2022", "menu is accessible for many dietary restrictions, including Halal and gluten sensitive"' " restaurant has also been recognized as a dessert destination, for sweeter dishes like cinnamon swirl pancakes and french toast crisp" etc. Theroadislong (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong The article wasn't rejected on account of it being advertising. It was rejected because it supposedly isn't notable. So its notability is what I am questioning. As for advertising, it's not intended at all to be advertising. The example text you're quoting is not advertising, it's exactly what's been reported in the articles - and therefore what makes the brand notable. Pür & Simple is a popular and well loved restaurant. Its menu offering is, of course, what people will talk about. And what is wrong with "many new restaurant openings in 2022"? These are historical events - and matters of fact. There were many new locations that opened, which were widely reported about in newspapers. LabourTO (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to convince the user who rejected the draft that the topic passes the criteria at WP:NCORP, it is not remotely clear that it does? Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Okay, I will await a response from @Jamiebuba. LabourTO (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LabourTO Sorry I've been down with Flu hence my inactivity. Thank you for your contributions and sorry that your article was rejected, I understand it maybe frustrating. I have thoroughly gone through some of your sources, some of which are blogs while others are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions of the subject. When reviewing articles, reviewers analyze at the Reliability of the sources present. Just because someone wrote "always meant to visit" doesn't assert notability.
To address the issue of Conflict of interest, being "a Happy Customer" actually gives you grounds of having COI with the subject indirectly or directly. Another is the tone of which the article is written. As pointed out by @Theroadislong some choice of words make it seem promotional. I would suggest giving it a bit of time before working on the draft again, because currently it will just be declined again.
Thanks and Happy New Year! Jamiebuba (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Request on 08:13:20, 5 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Clkluigi


Hello, My draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clkluigi#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Montreal_declaration_on_animal_exploitation_%28January_5%29 has been refused. The reasons for the refusal are clear in themselves, but I don't see how to apply them. I felt I had sourced everything correctly and the peacock terms are in sections dedicated to feedback, which seem balanced to me. Should I delete the "reactions" section? Thanks in advance for sharing your expertise--Clkluigi (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clkluigi (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:22, 5 January 2023 review of draft by Mamajudi3


I came across an magazine article recently about Qeuyl and wanted to know more about him so I turned to wikipedia but i was shocked to see that theres no info on him on here, I don't really understand what wikipedia considers worthy and my friends tell me not to trust it for info because the people who write these are bias and trolly. than i went down a rabbit hole and decided to find what i can it sorta seems like some if not most wikipedia editors are only following trends.

I thought the purpose of wikipedia is to archive information like an encyclopedia, I remember my favorite letter was M I learned my first magic trick from reading about a boring card trick, now that trick wasn't popular or glamours at all but it was worth it

I need help with the subject Qeuyl as well as a few other subjects like a list of all the top TikTok influencers, and not just the ones who you see a lot because they pay for advertisement, I want to know what happened to E_Brzy the creator or 75% of all the transition's on TikTok is he still alive, Is my fathers favorite action star Sho Kesugi still making movies?

I have questions you got answers if not lets find them together.

Mamajudi3 (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mamajudi3: do you, after that diatribe, have an actual question you would like to ask, related to the AfC review process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes can you help me cite this article I'm new to this Mamajudi3 (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamajudi3: sure — WP:REFB explains the process of referencing; WP:RS describes the concept of 'reliable sources'; and WP:GNG explains how to establish the subject's notability using such sources, where the subject doesn't meet one of the special notability standards such as WP:MUSICBIO. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mamajudi3 Regarding "I thought the purpose of wikipedia is to archive information like an encyclopedia"; this is not exactly correct; the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in other-words popular information, but what happens when the topic doesn't have enough coverage but is a key part of other topics Mamajudi3 (talk) 07:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mamajudi3: if a topic doesn't have sufficient (in both quality and quantity) coverage in published sources, then it is highly unlikely to be included in Wikipedia; that is pretty much the gist of the whole concept of 'notability' (as well as 'verifiability'), which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    in other-words popular opinion, do you not see the confusion here, on one end you are saying a topic must have sufficient resource information but I have already helped add references to topics with little to no references at all yet these topics have be accepted by the community. I love reading topics on here and helping add to the information but if I don't see a particular topic that I am actually interested in I am compelled to do all the research and start the Topic but according to the volunteers of wikipedia if it's not popular enough than theres no need to add it correct. Mamajudi3 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mamajudi3: be that as it may, the fact remains that Wikipedia is based on the principle of summarising what earlier sources have published, we are never the first outlet for disseminating new information. You are simply not going to change such core policy by debating it here at the help desk. Did you have an actual question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and yes that is why I asked for help on the Topic of Qeuyl Mamajudi3 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:04, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Сергеич Иванов

Hi everyone! Happy New Year! I've changed my draft and waiting for resubmission. Could you watch and tell me if everything OK with it? Thank you!!!! Сергеич Иванов (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Сергеич Иванов If you have updated the draft, and you want it to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button. David10244 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:18, 5 January 2023 review of draft by Philosophymaybe


I just submitted an article about a person. I was trying to upload his picture but every time it gave me an error. How do I do it?

Philosophymaybe (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophymaybe Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Your account is not yet four days old so you cannot upload images- but don't worry about images until your draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:21, 5 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared


I know that HBO made controversies surrounding it's programming in years. CastJared (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CastJared You haven't submitted it for a review, and it has very little content and no sources. "Controversies" is often considered not neutral; perhaps it should be along the lines of Criticism of Walmart, "Criticism of HBO". 331dot (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I updated to have sources. CastJared (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CastJared I see the sources there. If you are ready for the draft to be reviewed again, click the blue Resubmit button. David10244 (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:05, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Hickeygamez

I've requested a re-view because I've made several updates to the notability section. In particular, an article from journal has been the subject of numerous newspaper articles as of late.

Hickeygamez (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hickeygamez I've added the template so you can submit it, since it's been awhile. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:28, 5 January 2023 review of submission by Rachelemg


I am trying to get a page published but it keeps getting declined for lack of credible sources. How do I fix this? Also note, this page existed before for some time before deleted and I was working on a new one.

Rachelemg (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelemg I assume this is about Draft:Jay Feldman. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about Mr. Feldman, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your main source is an interview, which does not establish notability as it is the person speaking about themselves. We want to know what others wholly unconnected with Mr. Feldman have to say about him and why he is important or significant. The only claim to notability I see is that he is friends with Mark Wahlberg, but notability is not inherited by association. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand now. If I were to post a new article but on the company and not him as a person, would that be doable? There is way more information and credible articles on the company. Rachelemg (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you might have a better shot that way, but it depends on what the sources say and if the company meets the definition of a notable company. The sources cannot be interviews of company staff, press releases, announcements of routine activities, or other primary sources.(they can be used for other purposes but do not establish notability). 331dot (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like the Company page was declined as well. How do I go about requesting some one who is fluent in the Wiki world to create the page instead? Rachelemg (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rachelemg You can make a request at Requested articles, but it is so backlogged that any request you make may not be acted on for some time, if ever. If there are not the sources out there to support notability, it doesn't matter who writes it; without appropriate sources, it would not merit an article at this time. Do you have a connection to this business? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:26:24, 5 January 2023 review of draft by SonOfYoutubers


My draft has been awaiting review for over 2 months and I want my draft to be reviewed a bit quicker. I've completed about as much information that I can find, but I've been waiting and waiting and it still hasn't gotten reviewed. I understand there are many drafts to review, but I believe 2 months is a bit much. Thank you for the assistance! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SonOfYoutubers As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,112 pending submissions waiting for review." Can you tell us why your draft should be put on the front of the line ahead of the thousands of other people waiting? This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm trying to be patient, but I just personally feel like there's not much more changes or information to really be added. Another problem I'm having is really getting any involvement from others so that information that I may be unaware of can be filled out. I'll wait further, but I'm just afraid that it won't ever really get reviewed. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SonOfYoutubers If there's no more to add, then there's no more to add. You are free to tell others both on and off wiki about your draft. If you are 95-100% confident it would survive a deletion discussion, you are free to move it to the encyclopedia yourself, this process is voluntary for most people. It's a good idea if you lack experience in article creation, but it's voluntary. If you would like advice, please be patient. I understand your frustration, but this is a volunteer effort. It will eventually be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

09:24:43, 6 January 2023 review of submission by Zihao H

Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for reviewing my submission. It's so frustrated that the article has been rejected. Apache Doris is a database project empowered by Apache Software Foundation, which is an NGO and known worldwide.

I want to know the reason why the article has copyright issue and how could I update the article so that you could accept it. In addition, I found a lot of projects that empowered by Apache Software Foundation has been listed in Wikipedia, such as Apache Hadoop, Apache Spark, Apache Pivot, Apache Cassandra, Apache Kafka, Apache ZooKeeper, etc. What's the difference between theirs and my article?

Thank you

Zihao H (talk) 09:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zihao H: "the reason why the [draft] had copyright issue" is that a substantial proportion of it had been lifted verbatim from an external source, which is not only disallowed by Wikipedia policies but almost certainly by actual laws also. Another version of the draft was deleted as blatantly promotional. Neither is acceptable, regardless of whether the subject is in and of itself suitable for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:31:00, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20


Tojoroy20 (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can the references in this article be considered a reliable and accurate source? If not, then why are they not considered as valid sources.

11:56:56, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Museumsart


Museumsart (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Museumsart I assume this is about the draft I have placed a link to above, replacing a link to a different page. You have resubmitted it for a review, do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitted without any improvement, I might add. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Museumsart: the whole point of the review process is that when a draft gets declined, you address the reasons for the decline, and then — and only then — resubmit. You have now twice resubmitted without the slightest attempt at improvement, and if you continue like that you risk having the draft rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FOR INFO: it appears we now have Draft:Azure way museum (draftified from the mainspace), in addition to the earlier Draft:Azure Way Museum. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:35:46, 6 January 2023 review of draft by ManyKinds

I believe that the draft I created is correct. The draft was recently declined for not having a notable subject and reliable sources but I believe that to be false. The article shows that the subject is highly notable around social media and the internet and the articles include citations from news pages that are know worldwide. These news pages include a whole page which only talks about the subject. I am talking about Draft:Greg O’Gallagher.

ManyKinds (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the partial exception of the CNBC article, essentially those references are relatively trivial pieces and very close to vanity content - the 10 people you should follow in 2021 is not serious content. The decline of the draft means "you need to do a bit more", it does not mean they aren't notable - just that you haven't yet sufficiently demonstrated it. MarcGarver (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:11:35, 6 January 2023 review of submission by TylerBSS

isnt wikipedias goal to preserve everything? he has a video with over 100k views. please rereview this TylerBSS (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TylerBSS: no, that isn't the goal of Wikipedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarise what it considers notable, which in most cases means topics that multiple independent and reliable published sources have previously covered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:35:13, 6 January 2023 review of draft by Tojoroy20


Tojoroy20 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References are credible enough and not just a passing mention of the subject. Sources discuss a lot about the subject and the subject's work, rather than entire articles being based on the subject. Most of the sources are media articles, and are based on accurate information.Some articles may not be directly about the subject, but they do not disprove the facts mentioned. Information about Slayy Point is also available on wikidata.( I would be like to know exactly which sources are not considered reliable or In depth )

Request on 18:00:13, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Rockywriter88


examples of sources that can be added more? and not all museums add all artist book to there national collection of research.


Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve the page?

Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockywriter88: what you're asking for is a review of the draft, but you have submitted it already and it will be reviewed when a reviewer gets around to doing so, which may take weeks or even months, as there are c. 3,000 drafts awaiting review.
And please don't open a new thread with each question, just add them to your previous one. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your feedback. Rockywriter88 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:24, 6 January 2023 review of draft by CastJared


Um... I copied multiple of them, but 7 HBO series pages needed them to be moved. Also, I need more sources to be added. CastJared (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:55:41, 6 January 2023 review of draft by A.Alex10

Template:Lafc


A.Alex10 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I added more references to the article. Can you please tell me if they are good? Can you please help me in making this article better? Good enough to be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.Alex10 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:27:25, 6 January 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Addingcontentagain


Having trouble understandin the comments from reviewers. I'm struggling navigating the requirements for new articles. For this specific entry, I get comments that sources aren't notable, reliable, secondary, or independent. However, having read the instructions about these terms, I feel that the sources used in the article indeed are notable (e.g., Wired), reliable (Public Service broadcaster ZDF), secondary (Netzpolitik), and independent (all of the above). Would appreciate hands-on pointers as to what to do next. thanks!


Addingcontentagain (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1132012515"