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 Himalayaeduhub (talk | contribs) at 07:00, 23 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
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 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]
@Utokki I doubt that the music video "played on all Arab televisions". What is the source for that? David10244 (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Utokki (talk) 21:53, 24 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]
Yes I took this photo years back when I was in her dance performance. Jaisongeorgephilip87 (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you appear to have a conflict of interest in that you know her and you have still not removed the spam links to her business from the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Actually I don't understand which ones are spam links, all references Ive added are from the internet.
I you don't mind, can u pls help me removing the spam links. Jaisongeorgephilip87 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found one link that appears to be the website down and I've removed
Can you pls approve it now Jaisongeorgephilip87 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jaisongeorgephilip87 the external links are not the only issue. Sites like OnManorama are not a reliable source. Per their own About Us page, "The website provides a platform for talented people to showcase their products and skill to the world", which means they are a marketing/promotional site with some news. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 19 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]
OK, understood thank you. Do you have any advice for how to change the verbiage to make it not sound promotional? Is there anyway I can contact you separately? Lexybiederman (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lexybiederman read ADVOCACY, WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch an WP:NPOV. Your stated purpose is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose which is likely why you are encountering these issues and unlikely able to see/resolve them. S0091 (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lexybiederman An article would need to be based on what others, unconnected with the store, have published about it, such as in newspapers or magazines. Please read your first article for more information. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 09:08, 22 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]
@Rsimpson3490 You asked the same thing very recently. Did you read the replies? You must be notable (click here) as Wikipedia defines it. Please also read your first article for some important information. These will help explain what the issues are with your draft. David10244 (talk) 09:12, 22 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]
@Nswix I checked a couple of the other UFC events at random, and they have a lot of references. David10244 (talk) 18:37, 20 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]
@TRJ2008 See YFA. David10244 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


February 19

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]

Hi @44PVgirl at a brief look, the obvious one is Google Docs which is not usable here. The other issue is most of the sources seem to be profiles or stats, which are considered trivial coverage. Those are fine to use to support facts but do not help with notability. If you resubmit it, I suggest posting on the draft's talk page (Draft talk:Allison Neiders) three sources that meet WP:GNG (see WP:THREE for guidance). S0091 (talk) 15:46, 20 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]

09:20:19, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Sagar 29 94


Sagar 29 94 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar 29 94 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 post personal information about yourself, that's what social media is for. Wikipedia is for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about a person. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fir kya kre jo apne village ko wiki pr page bnane ke liye kya krna hoga? 117.243.208.28 (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English. If Hindi is your primary language, you may edit the Hindi Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:20, 19 February 2023 review of draft by Rushistoriia

I am having trouble getting feedback from reviewers on my article. It is being declined for publication but the reason given not specific. It says that the sources are not "reliable" and "verifiable" but I do not understand what they mean. Every sentence has a source to support what is being said in the article. Is there any way to get someone else to review it to offer specific feedback besides submitting it? When I have tried in the past I have not gotten any replies and have also had great difficulty getting the original editors to even respond to my questions. The article in question is Draft:James T. Andrews

Rushistoriia (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rushistoriia We don't need the whole url when you link to another article or page on Wikipedia, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets like this [[Draft:James T. Andrews]].
Regarding your draft, the sources all seem associated with Andrews in some way; a basic directory listing at Iowa State, a basic desciption of him from a conference website, a press release from Iowa State, etc. A Wikipedia article about a professor must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I am not sure I agree with that characterization. The majority of the citations are from reviews of his work that were written by academics who themselves are considered noteworthy by the standards of Wikipedia. These are peer-reviewed. The background of what his title is seems to be useful context, is that not so? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I am still just a bit confused. Is the implication here that a public R1 university is an unreliable source? Or that the Kennan Institute is also unreliable? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rushistoriia Universities/organizations that Dr. Andrews is employed by or otherwise associated with are not independent sources.
I can't examine the reviews, but based on the draft they don't seem to discuss him personally, but his work. That might merit his publications articles, but not necessarily him. 331dot (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This question of "otherwise associated with" seems to be a pretty confusing claim. If he won a Nobel Prize, doesn't that mean he is associated with it? In a similar vein, getting a prestigious competitive fellowship at the Hoover Institution or the Kennan Center, seems to be the way that academics establish their notability. But then it creates a situation where the very markers of their importance make them somehow ineligible? Rushistoriia (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he won a Nobel Prize, plenty of independent reliable sources would report on that- we wouldn't need something from the Nobel Committee itself. We need independent reliable sources that discuss Dr. Andrews' significance or influence. Winning a prestigious fellowship probably qualifies, but that needs to be reported on by independent reliable sources, not just the organization awarding the fellowship. Primary sources are acceptable in some circumstances, but not for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot That's not how prof articles work - reviews discussing the academic's work are perfectly acceptable. It's typically seen as better to have a single article on the author than several stubby articles on their books. If the references are genuine (I have not checked) this would almost certainly survive an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay(an interesting exception to the rest of Wikipedia, but I accept this exists), but if I'm remembering correctly most of the sources in this case were associated with him. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:NPROF is specifically an alternative to GNG. An academic can be extremely notable without any biographical coverage of them! Also, most humanities profs that pass AfDs do so under WP:NAUTHOR. Usually two sole-author books with 2+ reviews each will convince AfD participants to keep an article under WP:NAUTHOR, regardless of whether there is other biographical information available, since it's ok to cite non-independent sources for basic facts like "is professor of such-and-such university". -- asilvering (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a WP:NPROF pass - can you make it easier on reviewers by providing URLs/dois for the citations, and resubmit it? -- asilvering (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:08, 19 February 2023 review of submission by Amanda at Chocolate City Music


Candy Bleakz is a renowned artist. Amanda at Chocolate City Music (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda at Chocolate City Music The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because you have not demonstrated with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that this person meets at least one aspect of the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanda at Chocolate City Music Discussing someone's "passion" is almost never appropriate in the tone of an encyclopedia article. Also, "Prior to these wins" and "This relationship opened up a new world for Candy" and "The song went on to become a viral sensation and a monster street favorite". David10244 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:02:40, 19 February 2023 review of submission by 98.97.34.96

This review must be important. Because, I cannot edit anymore, and if I did it then it doesn't work. 98.97.34.96 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, your comment does not make sense and you do not ask a question but the draft is rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

12:13:41, 20 February 2023 review of submission by Cfr1980

Our Company Sekkingstad AS is a 100 year old Seafood Company from Norway, now in the business of processing and distribution of salmon and trout. Our market is worldwide. We would like to establish our existence and history on Wikipedia, just like Lerøy has done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ler%C3%B8y. Why are we denied the opportunity, and how can we do to be allowed to be on wikipedia in the same way as them, or for example Austevoll Seafood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austevoll_Seafood ?

Cfr1980 (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cfr1980 please see WP:PAID as you need to declare your affiliation with the company. I will leave some additional information on your talk page. As for the draft, thoroughly read WP:NCORP for the notability and sourcing requirements. You have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take a look but it will likely be declined again as the sources do not meet the requirements. S0091 (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:41:32, 20 February 2023 review of submission by Rudolf.Fernandes


I've added a section, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoxidil#Low_dose_oral_treatment. A user, Whywhenwhohow, removed it citing, "The information is based on a primary source and is not WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDMOS". I disagree with their assessment (while there is a primary source, there are other peer-reviewed sources as well).

I've tried reaching out to them to explain, point by point, why I think their assessment is incorrect but either my message did not reach or they've ignored it. So, as things stand, we just keep undoing each other's edits... which is ridiculous.

How do I establish one-on-one contact with Whywhenwhohow?

Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudolf.Fernandes: Whywhenwhohow started a conversation at Talk:Minoxidil#Low_dose_oral_treatment, which is the right place for this discussion to happen. It looks like you have responded there, but not to WWWH's most recent post. --bonadea contributions talk 13:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Rudolf.Fernandes (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:04, 20 February 2023 review of submission by Bindeshwari Devi


Bindeshwari Devi (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


How it will be approve, Should i add more references?

13:06:20, 20 February 2023 review of draft by Dankore23


Hi,

If I could get a little more detailed feedback on this article that would be great.

Thank you!

Dankore23 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dankore23 IMDB is not a reliable source so should not be used. The other two sources are trivial coverage and most of the content is unsourced. Please read through all the material linked in the decline notice. S0091 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:33:01, 20 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Chomaniii


Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to appeal the rejection of my article for publication on Wikipedia. I understand that my article was rejected due to a lack of references, and I would like to inform you that I have since added a government reference to my article.

I believe that my article is very reliable, and all the references I have provided are also reliable. I have worked diligently to ensure that my article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am confident that it meets the notability criteria.

I kindly request that you reconsider my article for publication on Wikipedia. I believe that it provides valuable and informative content for readers, and I am committed to working with other editors to improve and refine the article further.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Muhammad Ali Chomani

Chomaniii (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was only declined, not rejected. You have resubmitted it, so it will be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is just blatant advertising " gives a chance to the talented people and aid them to be the HITEX Future stars by showing their unique innovation and business ideas." How on earth is that neutral tone! Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:05, 20 February 2023 review of draft by Twinkle1990

Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Twinkle1990 you do not ask a question but the draft was deleted as it was deemed borderline vandalism. S0091 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you expect me to say? I have declined the draft, nominated for CSD, that's all. Twinkle1990 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:53, 20 February 2023 review of draft by LordVoldemort728

I am LordVoldemort728. I am also an Articles for Creation Reviewer. @User:InterstellarGamer12321 declined Draft:Puttanna and wrote "The existing references do not indicate that the article is particularly notable. The article needs to be expanded significantly using reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the subject." but he/she is 100% wrong. The article doesn't passes WP:GNG but passes WP:NPOL because he has been member and deputy chairperson of legislative bodies at sub national level.


​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LordVoldemort728: The draft still needs to be expanded significantly before it is suitable for mainspace. If the subject passes WP:NPOL, then there should be several independent references with significant coverage on him that could be used to expand the article. Declining a draft is not permanent: just expand it and resubmit for review. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InterstellarGamer12321 Wikipedia:NPOL doesn't say that for passing notability guidelines "there should be several independent references with significant coverage on him". It says that "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InterstellarGamer12321 Because I am also a reviewer, I recommend you to do deep analysis about the draft and then accept or decline it. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728: Two sentences is still not enough to make a proper article about a living person . You could easily use the existing sources to expand the article. This could be done in mainspace, so it is fine to resubmit. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can @S0091, @331dot or @User:Theroadislong solve this problem? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to resubmit the draft and let another reviewer accept/decline it. We can then work from there. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's my draft so you have to right to resubmit it until you are a major contributor of the article. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@InterstellarGamer12321 Did you read and understand Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and Wikipedia:Deletion policy before applying for becoming participant in AfC. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I read all of them as well as all of the other policies related to creating/deleting/reviewing articles. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calm Down LordVoldemort , You are coming off as overly aggressive here. Also, Per WP:DRAFTCAT. - An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. Razer(talk) 16:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Razer2115 What is your comment about that draft? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since He was a elected member for the state assembly and also the deputy chair of the council. It does appear that it passes WP:NPOL Razer(talk) 16:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LordVoldemort728 you can move the draft to mainspace yourself as there is no requirement you go through AfC. S0091 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is better to go through AfC. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Theroadislong has solved this dispute. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:10:09, 20 February 2023 review of submission by CedericV

Dear, I'm wondering why my submission is declined. It mentions that it's incomplete, but I don't understand why. Could someone please give some feedback? Thank you in advance! CedericV (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CedericV, I agree. @Praseodymium-141 can you please provide a more detailed explanation. Simply stating "This article seems to be incomplete." is generally not a reason to decline a draft and is quite unhelpful. S0091 (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32:16, 20 February 2023 review of draft by Kikima


Hi, I need help with my first article. It is declined the first time through. I changed the references and sources and hoping I did it correct this time. I think it is pretty okay, but cannot make sure. I need an independent editor to look over and make necessary adjustments to make sure everything is good before submitting. Thank you!

Kikima (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kikima it is very unlikely other editors will make adjustments to the draft so it is largely on you to do so. I will say you need cite the sources appropriately using in-line citations, which is required for WP:BLPs and much of the content is unsourced so that needs to be rectified. It is also unclear how she meets the the notability guidelines. Also for it to be reviewed, you need to submit it. Reviewers generally do not do "pre-reviews" given there are already over 2,500 submitted drafts pending review. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:52:22, 20 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Miekfin


The article was declined due to a lack of secondary sources.

Vladimir Baranov and Scott Tanner are scientists, not public figures, so coverage of their academic achievements are not well documented by the general press.

For the Manning Award, the primary source was the Manning Website, and the secondary source The Globe and Mail Newspaper article that mentions both of them. Not great but I could not find any other source for this 2001 Award.

For the HUPO Award the primary source was the HUPO website, and the secondary source Bloomberg.com. Again, not great. But again, scientific achievements are not covered well by the press.


His inventions, the Dynamic Reaction Cell and Mass Cytometry have their own Wikipedia pages at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collision/reaction_cell and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_cytometry

I am at a dead end. I cannot find any other secondary sources and thus cannot get past the Wikipedia Notability test despite his work/inventions being cited/published on Wikipedia.

Do you have any recommendations that would get this article published?

Regards, 

     Mike Finczak

Miekfin (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miekfin take a look at the notability guidelines for academics. I think there may be an argument he meets that bar. I suggest resubmitting with a note a draft's talk page (Draft talk:Vladimir Baranov) how he meets one of the criteria. Be concise, though (i.e. he meets #8 because....). S0091 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

14:37:54, 21 February 2023 review of draft by Raylaur15


Dear Wiki Editor: I submitted my Los Pleneros la 21 draft article on Jan 14, 2023. I realize it may take several months for the review, but I just want to confirm that I have done everything I need to do in order to insure that the draft has been correctly submitted and at this point there is nothing else that I need to do. Please advise and thanks, raylaur15

Raylaur15 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was successfully submitted. You don't need to do anything else in that regard, though you may continue to work on it if need be. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:37, 21 February 2023 review of draft by CastJared


I know that not all the article sources, that this is a controversial article relating to HBO, and it contains half of the summary. CastJared (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are collating what you deem to be an "HBO controversy", this is original research. 331dot (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:29, 21 February 2023 review of submission by Murky Churky


Murky Churky (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, because there is nothing to suggest that the topic is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:56, 21 February 2023 review of draft by Fishermansson1


I have 25 references to my submission included at the end. The format was changed making them impossible to read. how do I fix it? Fishermansson1 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fishermansson1 see this guide adding citations or this guide. I am not sure what you mean by the format changing. Another editor did tidy up the section headers to meet WP:Manual of style guidelines but I don't see the formatting of the sources changed. S0091 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


February 22

00:14:56, 22 February 2023 review of draft by ConsKrypt


Hello, my article for the new interim coach for Brisbane Roar FC has been declined due to references not being suffice, I was wondering how they are not suffice as it includes an official statement from the football club themselves addressing the proof of the information to be correct. The page in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Green_(Interim_Coach) that has been declined. This is my first wiki submission in terms of a new entry rather than small edits/corrections to existing articles.

I am looking for tips as to how to help with the article being accepted to reduce the amount of 'red links' on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to read this help request. ConsKrypt (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ConsKrypt (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ConsKrypt, the club is a primary source. What you need are secondary reliable sources, unconnected to the club and Green that have written in-depth about Green (not interviews or what they say themselves). Read through the links in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17:38, 22 February 2023 review of draft by Spal07


I was wondering why my draft submission was rejected, when a similar article (Emily Geach) has been accepted? The same type of sources were used for both articles.Spal07 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC) Spal07 (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spal07 That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was approved or accepted by anyone; there are numerous ways for inappropriate content to get past us, see other stuff exists. It could be that this other article has similar problems as your draft and you wouldn't be aware of this. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Please see the comments left bythe reviewer at the top of your draft. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:22, 22 February 2023 review of draft by Somaolduin


Somaolduin (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bot?

@Somaolduin: no, reviewers are not bots. Do you have a question about your draft? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Somaolduin you have a good start on the draft but is there another source or two outside the local area that has written in-depth about the newspaper? That would help. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:02:02, 22 February 2023 review of draft by Brownmattc


Hello - I do not understand why you have rejected this addition. The venue hosts hundreds of music acts every year and has for the last 12 years. Any venue that has hosted over 1000 acts deserves to be in Wikipedia. Please explain why this is rejected and why the listed sources are not satisfactory.

Brownmattc (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links in the decline message you received. Wikipedia doesn't care about how many acts a venue has hosted - sorry. The definition of "notability" here depends entirely on whether the topic has been covered in secondary sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

05:21:47, 23 February 2023 review of submission by Shyamalogic


Shyamalogic (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rejected, which means you cannot submit it again. -- asilvering (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:05, 23 February 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Himalayaeduhub

07:00:05, 23 February 2023 review of submission by Himalayaeduhub

{{SAFESUBST:Void|


Himalayaeduhub (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1141080109"