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 Mr. technify (talk | contribs) at 04:18, 19 February 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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


February 11

00:12:31, 11 February 2023 review of submission by DarkKingLuffy

DarkKingLuffy (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Why did my draft get declined[reply]

01:36:03, 11 February 2023 review of submission by Rajmohanaushik

Rajmohanaushik (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajmohanaushik, provide sources in the article as the previous reviewers have requested. As it stands there are zero. Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:08, 11 February 2023 review of draft by Scribes52


Scribes52 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My original draft contained a paragraph where I unwittingly let personal emotion through with the wording "Sadly, ...". I have now changed that into an entirely factual account. I have also read through the entire draft to try to ensure that everything is factual, unemotional, and supported by numerous references. If it is felt that anything still needs attention I would be pleased to do that and would appreciate specific pointers to the paragraphs concerned.

16:10:37, 11 February 2023 review of submission by Örverpi

Hello, I see you declined my draft for this page stating that 3 sources are from the same website. This shows that you didn't actually check the sources. Yes 3 sources I referenced are from the same website and it's because it's an archive for old newspapers in Iceland. They are all different if you actually check the link. The 4th source is an open report from the Icelandic safety transportation board with help from the NTSB and Sikorsky aircraft. Kind Regards. Örverpi (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Örverpi I'm fairly sure the reviewer looked at the sources. Instead of citing the website which hosts the newspaper articles, you should cite the articles themselves, just as if you found them in a physical library(you wouldn't cite the library, you would cite the newspaper. It's the same with an online archive). 331dot (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:09, 11 February 2023 review of draft by Mlsmith1962


Hello - I have made edits to the article based on feedback received in the initial review. I have seen references to adding audio materials, and found an interview between the songwriter and one of the artists who has covered the song on youtube, that provides additional information on the writing of the song. I have two questions. Can I include the interview as a link in the interest of including audio information about the song? Or would it be preferable to create a background section citing the interview as a reference? Thank you! Mlsmith1962 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mlsmith1962 Note that interviews do not establish notability, which is mainly what this process is concerned with, because it is the person speaking about themselves or their own work, and Wikipedia is primarily interested in what independent reliable sources say about a topic. You can certainly include an interview, but it doesn't contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:16, 11 February 2023 review of submission by GXRG

GXRG (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GXRG You edited your user page, which is not article space, but a place to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor only. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. If you still want to attempt it, please use WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:48:19, 11 February 2023 review of submission by 66.119.24.210

I just don't get why you would ever deny my religion like that. What's the reason?

66.119.24.210 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is denying your religion, but for it to merit a Wikipedia article, independent reliable sources must choose on their own to write about it, establishing that it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Once you have a few million followers and the news takes note of your religion, then come back. I suggest you use social media to tell the world about your religion. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

03:18:50, 12 February 2023 review of submission by RobertB71

The page describes a band with thousands of views on Youtube, with extensive coverage on Google, see search results here: https://www.google.com/search?q=thr%C3%B6nn

The band is genuine, has released an EP - with verifiable sources provided on the Wikipedia page.

I don't understand why it has been marked NOT notable.

Please re-review. Thanks.

RobertB71 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a new paragraph has been added about the innovative approach to christian music that the band perceives as somewhat stereotyped.
Their biggest influence is Polyphia - which also started as a christian band.
Have you even tried to listen to their music? It's a progressive EDM combined with metal.
This is no ordinary "church band" and it most certainly deserves to be on Wikipedia. RobertB71 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RobertB71 The only sources you offer just serve to document the availability of their music, which is completely irrelevant to if they merit an article or not. Anyone can post music to the internet these days. A Wikipedia article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please read Your First Article. If the band meets at least one aspect of the notability criteria, a re review may be possible if you start from scratch(you may simply blank the draft and start over), summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the band. If you have no such sources, or the band does not meet the criteria, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:23, 12 February 2023 review of submission by 2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB

2A02:CB80:4226:2047:EDC1:D69E:51C6:5DB (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but two weblinks will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:13:39, 12 February 2023 review of draft by Karpour

This article was rejected on the basis of sources being primary. The issue is that sources are hard to find.

There is almost no published press about this event, as press was not invited. The only exception is Computer Chronicles, which was the only TV show to do extensive coverage of ETRE. I could include a mention of this in the article, but adding these episodes as sources do little more than confirm the location and attendees of certain ETRE editions.

I can provide sources for dates and locations of ETRE editions, but these are mostly directly taken from the respective website of the event. And it feels like adding a citation for every single date an annual event took place would clutter up the page. This is also not done on other annual event pages.

The best source I have is a cache of scanned correspondence which the Computer History museum digitized upon my request.

I'm looking forward to constructive input on getting this page ready. Please keep in mind that - apart from computer chronicles episodes and more ETRE websites from the internet archive - there are few additional sources available. In my opinion this event is still notable enough in that it is long running and influential to warrant a Wikipedia page.

Thank you.

Karpour (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are few sources then it is a very strong indication that the topic is not notable, Wikipedia requires there to be significant coverage in reliable independent sources to justify there being an article. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only one media outlet was allowed to report from this event, the coverage is fairly extensive though. Any claim in the article is supported by sources. Whether this event itself is notable enough should not be decided on a whim based on the fact that few sources are available as of now. The issue is that most secondary sources would be in magazines that are not (yet) digitized. Karpour (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have been accused of being a paid editor, let me clear up my motivation for creating this article. I run a project for the Internet Archive to properly archive all episodes of the TV show Computer Chronicles. For this I had to do research on several conferences, including ETRE. See https://computerchronicles.karpour.net/
I am not affiliated in any way with this conference or any person involved in organizing this conference.
You can watch episodes covering ETRE here: https://archive.org/details/computerchronicles Karpour (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be online or digitised. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:23, 12 February 2023 review of submission by CHAINA CHIRKOFF

CHAINA CHIRKOFF (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello please tell mw why you have reject it?

Hi @CHAINA CHIRKOFF: read through the decline notice. In-depth coverage from reliable sources is required and the draft has no sources nor any indication it could meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

00:38:38, 13 February 2023 review of submission by PeterSmith6396

PeterSmith6396 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added more relevant information, he is also a really famous game creator.

00:40:43, 13 February 2023 review of submission by PeterSmith6396

PeterSmith6396 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I added more relevant information, he is a well known game creator.

(didnt mean to send a message twice

05:58:30, 13 February 2023 review of submission by Ninanicolletti

Ninanicolletti (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC) My submission is for Anthony Michael Nicolletti. This was my father with whom I interviewed before his death. I am having problems creating links to other pages for name association, places, schools, organizations, and etc. With this I want to associate his life to other people he was friends or employed by and other points of interest. Thank you.[reply]

Stephenie Price (Nina Nicolletti)

Ninanicolletti Before you worry about creating links, you need to establish that your father meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, through summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him. An interview is not acceptable for establishing notability, as it is the person speaking about themselves. There is also no way to independently verify the content of your interview. Your personal thoughts("Stephenie ("Nina") had a fond relationship with Anthony") are not acceptable article content as they too are impossible to independently verify. Please read Your First Article, as well as conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:52, 13 February 2023 review of submission by XACAT

XACAT (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Tokugaw Iechiyo has no content, so there is nothing to review? Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XACAT An article about this person already exists at Tokugawa Ieyasu, where you are welcome to improve it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20:36, 13 February 2023 review of draft by CastJared

Um, I copied multiple related controversies from 8 HBO series into this page, including 1 film, I need help for this, expand to include more controversies involved. CastJared (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened them on Game of Thrones, Girls, Euphoria, and Leaving Neverland. CastJared (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:29, 13 February 2023 review of submission by Rsimpson3490

Hello, my name is Robert Shiloh Simpson. I am a new-coming up Rap Artist, and college student. This page "Robertsky" has been messing with my Wikipedia artist page. I believe it is my step-sister and my step-father, I know this because he believes we share the same name and I am his junior even though we do not share the same middle name. My step-sister always said to me she wanted to name her "daughter" "Sky" so I do not believe in this coincidence. These two people mentioned are trying to sabotage my Rap career. Please do not allow this "Robertsky" page to review my wikipedia page. I have muted them from my notifications already. Thank you. Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Rsimpson3490 17:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Rsimpson3490 17:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected your draft I'm afraid, there was zero evidence that you could pass WP:GNG, or WP:NSINGER. Wikipedia is not for "new-coming" talents I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:24:46, 13 February 2023 review of submission by JuMu411

I cited three independent and reliable sources that should meet the notability requirement but the draft was not accepted. I could possibly find a few more sources if needed but I would first like to know what the ones I have already cited are not adequate. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuMu411 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Large portions of the draft are unsourced. One source was the New York Times, but only gives a date; there should be enough information for someone to locate the source if they wished(author, page number, etc. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:53, 13 February 2023 review of submission by Tt78155

This article is not a user guide - it is an overview of some of the archival holdings in the VOCES oral history project.

Tt78155 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC) Tt78155, See WP:NOT but Wikipedia is also not a a portal to assist people in finding specific collections. It is also not a place to solicit submissions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles that summarize what reliable sources say about a subject with limited use of their own words, publications, and documents. If the organization can meet WP:NORG, then you need to demonstrate independent sourcing that shows WP:Notability and remove everything not covered by those sources. Slywriter (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:20, 13 February 2023 review of submission by Csimmsclark1790

I feel I have provided enough solid sources to warrant publication and prove notoriety. While the initial entry very much did not come from a neutral point of view, I feel it has been properly altered to feel more encyclopedic and in line with the tone of other local/regional publication entries. Csimmsclark1790 (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Csimmsclark1790 We're looking for not "notoriety"(which has a slight negative connotation) but notability. I can't say I disagree with the comments left by reviewers on the draft. Typically rejected drafts can't be resubmitted. If you have new information the last reviewer did not consider, the first step is to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 14

02:27:04, 14 February 2023 review of submission by Thepres1s Stuff

I updated things, and I bet that other pages here have around 1 million downloads yet you reject Progressbar95 for being "not notable" Also, references has been fixed. Thepres1s Stuff (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has a single reference to progressbar95.fandom.com/wiki/Progressbar95_Wiki that is NOT a reliable independent source and the draft was correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Perplex Cities EP, Serj Tankian (Submitted 03.02.23, declined)

Hi so basically I tried writing a bit on the latest EP by S. Tankian and it got rejected Honestly there isn't a whole lot of stuff about the EP online, so I'm kinda bummed on what I could add to it now I took the same structure as the previous EP, Elasticity, but significantly fewer sources are available for this one ... TheÆtherPlayer (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:09, 14 February 2023 review of submission by Bilwal20

Bilwal20 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilwal20 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone- please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bilwal20 Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:07, 14 February 2023 review of submission by Waheeddehaw

Waheeddehaw (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waheeddehaw You don't ask a question, but a test edit will not be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:09, 14 February 2023 review of submission by HayaSim

Hello, I want to now why the page is refused as Pierrick Pédron in one of the most important Sax player and has a solid career. Thank you very much. Haya

HayaSim (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HayaSim I've fixed the link for you- we don't need the whole url. The reason for the decline was given by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Do you have a specific question about it? 331dot (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:12, 14 February 2023 review of submission by GreenEli

I have been working on a draft for this article over the past few months, basically tearing it down to the bones left by its original creator and editors, and building it back up again into a more accurate and neutral article on its subject.

I've submitted it for AfC, as I think its details are ready, but I believe I've left an issue with the layout, having unintentionally created a second reference section with a reference to an external link that does not mention the subject herself (rather, her great grandfather). My understanding is that references should directly mention an article's subject, so it didn't qualify for inclusion in the article body. But I didn't want to simply leave out this reference, or the external link from which it came, as I think it's important to her ancestry. As such, I removed the reference from where it originally lay in the article body, placed it on the external link, but that also created this second reference section (which I named in the meantime, until someone with knowledge about how such a reference should appear corrects its placement/appearance). Can anyone let me know whether or not this needs to be changed, and, if it does, how to do that (or, if it's not too much trouble, make the change yourself)?

There is also a script warning that appears when I check Preview in Edit source, from some script left over from the previous editors. I'm not well-versed enough to pick that out and fix it.

Apologies if this should have been asked in the Teahouse instead. Wasn't sure about where it was better to inquire.

Thank you, GreenEli (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GreenEli, take a look at the changes I made. Does that address your concern or did I misunderstand? Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page. S0091 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for fixing that @S0091,
I think that works well! I like the "Further reading" heading, and that the layout looks more appropriate now.
Any idea on the script warning? The warning says "Script warning: One or more {-{cite news}-} templates (I added the dashes to stop the code from appearing in my text here) have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help)." It only seems to appear when I do Show preview, but I figure that it must be important if it's showing up.
Thanks, again, for the help! GreenEli (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenEli I don't know about the errors. You can ask at the Teahouse though. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

Request on 07:50:30, 15 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Subscriptionapp

I wank to know why my article is decline so i can resolve my article problem


Subscriptionapp (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pink box at the top of the draft tells you, namely that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Subscription business model instead. Theroadislong (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:25, 15 February 2023 review of submission by Rsimpson3490

Hey Friend, This is Shy Stacks himself and I'm just reaching out to ask you why you rejected my wikipedia page. I know I'm still a new artist with few accomplishments yet. So just take your time and let me know if there's anything you want me to add that I haven't added yet.


  • nothing about my adoptive family please*

Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Rsimpson3490 13:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rsimpson3490 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Those articles, when about musicians, must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. We are interested in what others say about you, not what you or your associates say about you. I suggest that you go on with your career, and when independent editors take note of coverage of you, they will choose to write about you. That's the best indicator of notability, trying to force the issue does not usually work. Please read why an article is not necessary desirable. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:30, 15 February 2023 review of submission by Aadarsha12

I want you to re-review because this doesnot violate any policies of wikipedia and is about a well known author. Also, this article has nothing wrong to be cancelled


Aadarsha12 (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aadarsha12: Please see the deletion notice I placed on your talk page. It has links to information you need. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is no such notice Aadarsha12 (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:35, 15 February 2023 review of draft by Utokki

Hello, I have removed unreliable sources from my draft, but I can't find any places where the album has been reviewed, and I don't know if Youtube is a reliable source to show music video views. I just really need help with someone editing my draft because English isn't my first language, and this will be definitely hard if I edit this alone. Thank you.

Utokki (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting music video views isn't the main issue with your draft- please read the advice left by reviewers, as well as the policy pages they have linked to. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did and changed and I changed things. I just want to know if my draft look alright to submit now Utokki (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 16

09:07:07, 16 February 2023 review of submission by CirclesAndTriangles

Hey, I'm wondering what actually needs to be adjusted on the post to make it suitable? I'm not really finding any examples which will help, I can re-edit the post, but the reason keeps coming up is the references, which has been changed and adjusted I'm really keen to get this on.

Do I need a similar set up to this - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinlife ? CirclesAndTriangles (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CirclesAndTriangles The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Note that the German Wikipedia may have different rules about what is acceptable article content than the English Wikipedia, which tends to be stricter than other language versions. The English Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a business and what it does. An article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. "Significant coverage" goes beyond telling about the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as significant or influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that must be declared, please see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:26, 16 February 2023 review of submission by Adem jashari99

Adem jashari99 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adem jashari99, you do not ask a question but after several submissions and reviews the draft was rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that means that no article about these artists will be accepted Adem jashari99 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, no. It doesn't mean forever, but you have not shown that this person meets our definition of a notable creative professional or a notable musician. It's possible that the Macedonian Wikipedia, which likely has different requirements as it has different editors and policies, would accept an article about him. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:47, 16 February 2023 review of draft by Engmaj


Hi, I had drafted this article in my sandbox. User:Engmaj/sandbox3 and was in the process of making it a live article by cutting and pasting each section. (This is not the first article I have created that way.) One problem--all of my footnotes and reference list did not come over properly. Is there a way to move this as a block so that I don't need to re-enter each one?

Another is that someone moved it too quickly to draft space and added all these tags. I have communicated with Silikonz who has apologized for quick fingers.

I was using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_343 as a model, which included the text of the manifesto being described. That section has been eliminated from my draft. Can I return it?

Thanks for the help!

Engmaj (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Engmaj, User:Engmaj/sandbox3 still exists. Your options are submit to AfC for Review and if accepted it will be moved. Go to WP:RM to handle a move to mainspace. Or you can use the WP:PAGEMOVE tool in the top right to move your sandbox to the main space page title. Cutting and pasting section by section is ill-advised as the above methods preserve history, formatting, etc. Please also review for CopyVio as I see the draft has been tagged as having an issueSlywriter (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at actual text, the full manifesto should not be in the article and the signatories section is questionable. I would not move into mainspace without giving article a hard look and would suggest submitting to AfC as I'm not sure mainspace is a slamdunkSlywriter (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the helpEngmaj (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 17

07:19:39, 17 February 2023 review of draft by Jaisongeorgephilip87


Jaisongeorgephilip87 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Hi,

Ive given enough data for my submission sasilekha nair profile and you are rejecting that because of the early life section. So I am removing the section now as i don't have any proof for that. if i get any anything later, i will add it later on.

@Jaisongeorgephilip87 Did you take that picture of her, with your own camera? David10244 (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the WP:COI/WP:PAID inquiry on your talk page. Slywriter (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:43:25, 17 February 2023 review of submission by J777D

J777D (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC) 11:43:25, 17 February 2023 review of submission by J777D[reply]

12:34:29, 17 February 2023 review of submission by Curtmarsalis

The entry, Kandiid is a valid software app that is noted and duly verified across all mediums. Kandiid is registered under South Carolina register and is making a social impact globally. Kandiid and its owners have been featured in Forbes, Entrepreneur and various other media outlets. In addition, the platform has scored various awards from highly reputable organizations that judge apps in general. I ask for a review on the premise of its merit. Thank You in Advance Curtmarsalis (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curtmarsalis The existence of the app or its validity is not at issue. The issue is that notability has not been demonstrated. Most of the sources seem to be interviews with the app creators or press release type stories, which are not independent sources. This is why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Niche industry awards typically do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award, Pritzker Prize, or Nobel Peace Prize. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:04:49, 17 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhisheksuvarna17


Abhisheksuvarna17 (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abhisheksuvarna17 you do not ask a question but I suggest reading through all the material linked in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:14, 17 February 2023 review of submission by Abhisheksuvarna17

Abhisheksuvarna17 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC) need to publish my edit[reply]

See above. S0091 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:47, 17 February 2023 review of submission by Lexybiederman

I am trying to inform the public about Scully & Scully, a luxury furniture store that has been on Park Ave in NYC since 1934. There is a lot of history behind the store and I want people to be able to read about it on Wikipedia when they Google it.

I have never written a wiki pg before so please let me know if there is anything I need to delete.

Lexybiederman (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted because it was "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view" See WP:YFA for help with what is required. Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any article that begins with America's premier purveyor of fine home furnishings and gifts since 1934 is likely to be deleted as promotional. You'll need to find independent sources about Scully & Scully, and neutrally summarize what they're saying. The draft read like an ad brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:46:31, 17 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Rsimpson3490

Hello, I am requesting help with my wikipedia page. It is under review for no reason, I have done nothing wrong, besides upload carefully review and post information about myself that is useful to my fans. I am an artist named "Shy Stacks" my real name is Robert Shiloh Simpson. Everything I posted was truthful and true to my heart. It has taken me weeks to upload this page, so please help me reinstate. Thank you. Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Rsimpson3490 18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Robert Shiloh "Shy Stacks" Simpson Rsimpson3490 18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rsimpson3490 please see WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTPROMO Wikipedia is not your personal website. S0091 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 18

03:30:24, 18 February 2023 review of submission by 2603:8000:1E00:8D00:1883:DCCA:1036:D484

2603:8000:1E00:8D00:1883:DCCA:1036:D484 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)what can you advise to make this article while I keep adding to it[reply]

If you have more to add, you should not have submitted it until it was ready. You have no reliable sources cited in the draft at all, it is just one line. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:24:01, 18 February 2023 review of submission by Nswix

I'm just curious why this one event can't get created, but literally all 634 of UFC's other events have a page... and yet this one is repeatedly deleted and redeleted. Nswix (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nswix See other stuff exists; perhaps some of those events shoudn't have articles either. Only one source is offered in this draft; to pass this process reviewers usually look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic that are summarized in the draft. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 27. Any draft will not be accepted until those concerns are addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:43, 18 February 2023 review of submission by 41.13.102.99

41.13.102.99 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, and no drafts have been edited from your IP. If you have an account, please log in before asking your question. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:55:00, 18 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by TRJ2008

Hello, I believe that this article should be created. However i am not sure what exact links i need for it to be complete. Thanks in advance for the assistance

TRJ2008 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has only one source and Facebook is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:33:34, 19 February 2023 review of submission by 44PVgirl

Hello. The previous reviewers wanted more sources, so I added most of the known articles about the subject and her Latvian National Record for Pole Vault and resubmitted.

The last reviewer indicated "Unreliable sources remain." I have linked many sources, most of them are online publications specific to the sport but a few are magazines. Some of them are in Latvian, but subject is the Latvian National Record holder in Pole Vault (hence creating the wikipedia article) how do I know what unreliable source the editor wants to pull out? Thank you. 44PVgirl (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell how to provide more information than this

02:29:12, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Rajmohanaushik

Rajmohanaushik (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajmohanaushik:, what specific advice can someone assist you with?--CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:18:42, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Mr. technify

Mr. technify (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1140242035"