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 Hyccc20 (talk | contribs) at 08:20, 8 March 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


March 1

06:36:04, 1 March 2023 review of submission by Salim12009


Salim12009 (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salim12009 You don't ask a question but your draft was rejected, and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:02, 1 March 2023 review of submission by Sriramagroups


Sriramagroups (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for promotion and username. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:13, 1 March 2023 review of submission by Bmjc98

Hi! I am requesting another re-review of this draft. This draft was declined and was considered not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia 19 days ago. So I updated the draft and removed some sources that were either interviews and quotes, etc. Please have it reviewed one more time. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bmjc98 Rejection typically means that a draft may not be considered again. If there is new information that the reviewer did not have to consider, addressing the concerns given by past reviews, your first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:43, 1 March 2023 review of draft by Cyrilliclols

im making a article on the voiceless El in the kabardian alphabet of 1906 and i tried using wikipedia as my source because that the only reliable source i had but it said i cant, what other websites can i use to cite?

Cyrilliclols (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to use websites, printed materials in a library are fine. But Wikipedia cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

06:03:26, 2 March 2023 review of submission by Marcosfv2020


Hi, I am trying to edit and create a company page for Filevine, and trying to model the page after Clio (Software Company), Here is a link to their page Clio (software company)

I have edited the page to removed any type of promotional language and write about it in a neutral language, but I keep getting flagged for promotional writing.

I have a theory it could be from the awards and the achievement section of the article, I am open to any suggestions.

Marcosfv2020 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcosfv2020 We don't need the whole url when linking to another article or page on Wikipedia, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets like this, [[Joe Biden]] gives Joe Biden.
It's not always a good idea to use any random article as a model or guide, as the article you view could have problems that you would be unaware of. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Wikipedia is not a place for a company to document its existence and tell of its activities. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We aren't interested in what a company says about itself, or in its routine business activities, but in sources that on their own describe what is significant/important/influential about the company as they see it, not as the company sees it.
Awards typically do not contribute to notability unless there is an article about the awards itself(such as Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Some of the awards you name are for company staff, not the company itself- and most of the ones about the company are frankly not particularly significant. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:27:18, 2 March 2023 review of submission by Nikarmazi

Hello this is about my submitted draft about the multifunctional space in gori called the art house it was declined yesterday and I have a question about it is the subject matter itself too insignificant to be accepted or can I revise my draft for it to be accepted?

Nikarmazi (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:44:29, 2 March 2023 review of submission by Gaurab17


After completion of the Draft Bishop W. C. Hunter and filling details in 'Articles for creation/Submitting', submission does not take place. Requesting for an assistance.

Gaurab17 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurab17 You need to click the "submit your draft for review" button on the screen; however, you should not submit it until you cite every substantive piece of information about this person; we have a strict policy about how living people are written about, please see WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help with referencing, see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:23, 2 March 2023 review of submission by Riittu patel


Riittu patel (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Riittu patel This is the English-language Wikipedia and articles here must be written in English. David10244 (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:35, 2 March 2023 review of submission by Nlyerea



So Im requesting a review because I need this article in sandbox approved I listed all the references, which was the issue to begin with and it seems fine now This mythology post is something Im looking forward to completing If there are any other issues please address them to me thanks Nlyerea (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:45, 2 March 2023 review of submission by Savagecrybaby

I just wanted to know why my article was rejected. They say that I need more sources that are secondary but all the sources that I cited were stats and there is not much info on this topic. There are no secondary sites that explain which countries are most popular, how many downloads, or other things like this. All I'm saying is that there are not enough sites for me to get a lot of information and it is going to be a small page. Savagecrybaby (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Savagecrybaby An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. If as you say there are not a lot of sources that discuss this game, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:39, 2 March 2023 review of draft by Xschimmer


I will work on editing but I am wondering why the sources do not work to approve this- I used RollingStone and Iheart Radio, another band that he toured with Nightly, mostly has youtube, as sources and there page is up. Would I have a better chance if I listed a discography with youtube sources? I am happy to remove any sources that are causing issue, thank you for any guidance that can be provided!

Xschimmer (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xschimmer Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has no bearing on yours. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and you would not be aware of this. For example, YouTube is rarely acceptable as a source, usually only from news outlets on their verified channel.
Most of your sources do not seem to have significant coverage of the band, and just serve to document specific information. You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the band, coverage that goes into detail about it. The band needs to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


March 3

01:17:57, 3 March 2023 review of draft by Die Kunst Der Fuge


Hi, I understand that this subject falls under multiple contentious topics (abortion and American politics), and would appreciate any help or advice.

Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there specific advice you are looking for? You have submitted the draft for a review. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:36, 3 March 2023 review of submission by Keshavdogra

He is working as general secretary of the national party, and his activities engage a lot of people from other parties as well as the general public. Kindly consider reviewing and making this page public. Keshavdogra (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keshavdogra According to List of political parties in India, the party this man is the general secretary for is only active in one state. Most of the draft is unsourced, especially the parts describing his alleged influence. Engaging the general public is a normal part of the job of a party leader. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:01:38, 3 March 2023 review of submission by Rohnie D

I'm a little unsure as to what "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" is supposed to mean, initially I was told it was rejected because of lack of references and as soon as I got the ref, this is the new reason. My Organization is a legitimate manufacturer of EVs and we really think we deserve a place on Wikipedia. Please guide me as to how to accomplish the same ASAP & without any trouble. Rohnie D (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohnie D First, as a company representative, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure on your user page, I will provide you with instructions on how to do this on your user talk page.
You misunderstand what Wikipedia is. This is not a database of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, which we call notability- such as the definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a company must show how the company meets our definition of notability through summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it. We are not interested in press releases, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, and the like. We want to know what others completely unaffiliated with the business choose on their own to say about it and the significance or influence of the business. Company representatives usually have great difficulty in editing as Wikipedia requires, as they must set aside everything they know about the company. Please read conflict of interest. The draft was rejected, and won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:45, 3 March 2023 review of submission by Nlyerea


Rereview my submission Nlyerea (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission is completely unsourced, which is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:40, 3 March 2023 review of draft by SayeedMollik


SayeedMollik (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SayeedMollik you do not ask a question but your draft is not yet submitted for review. Even so, it does not appear to meet the notability and sourcing guidelines. Mere announcements about a newspaper launching is not enough so appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Please also see Your first article. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:46, 3 March 2023 review of draft by DRS311


DRS311 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Would appreciate any help with writing this art.
Queen Elizabeth I visted 3 times within 7 years.
The Althams lived here for 200 years.
Then also the Arkwrights, credited as the driving force behind the development of the spinning frame.
And in the 1890s, The manor house was let it to the Gilbey family who remained in occupation until the death of Newman Gilbey in 1942.
The house then became a hostel for the Women's Land Army until it burned down in 1947; a small part of the house which survived the fire was used for educational purposes until the late 1950s, but was finally demolished in 1960;
the stable block was converted into a museum by Harlow Council in 1981.
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol8/pp186-195
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/essex/vol2/pp145-149
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol2/pp154-155
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol8/pp110-112
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/essex/vol2/plate-67
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/essex/vol2/plate-68
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/essex/vol2/plate-46#:~:text=Chair%3B%2017th%2Dcentury.-,Latton,-Church.%20Monument%20to
https://landedfamilies.blogspot.com/2014/04/118-altham-of-mark-hall-oxhey-place-and.html
https://landedfamilies.blogspot.com/2015/06/173-arkwright-of-mark-hall-parndon-hall.html


https://archive.org/details/arkwrightsharlow0000lake
https://archive.org/details/bookofharlowillu0000jone

19:41:10, 3 March 2023 review of draft by Per W


I have got three notices that an article requires sources that are:

  • in-depth,
  • reliable,
  • secondary and
  • independent.

The article has 8 references from 5 different sources. At least 7 of them are long enough to be in-depth, especially for such a clandestine organisation. Joakim von Braun seems to be reliable as he has followed the Soviet Union and Russia for decades. I do not know much about the others. The references are mostly secondary, some can be tertiary. The Westeners should be independent of the subject.

Thus, I would like to have concrete pieces of advice on how to improve the draft. Tails Wx

Per W (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the draft is getting there, but only minor improvements were made from the last time it was declined. Tails Wx 21:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer, Tails Wx! The problem is that I do not know what should be added in order to move it to the article space. Now, it has some basic information and sources. As a secret military organisation, it is difficult to find stuff. Per W (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Have you tried finding non-English sources? I would also go ahead and expand the draft as well! Tails Wx 13:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, what kind of sources are lacking in order to show the notability?
Secondly, I have found two Russian sources and one Swedish one.
Thirdly, what is missing in the draft? Per W (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitted with some more references (actually not so many new sources since some refer to book by Joakim von Braun). Per W (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, I want to state that I was a probationary reviewer and just removed from the AFCH. If I had to review that draft, first question in my consideration would have been occurred that there are 5 offline references and how an AFC reviewer can afford offline books given as reference! Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:04, 3 March 2023 review of submission by 59.103.110.196


59.103.110.196 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No question given, draft rejected, IP might want to read WP:SHOUT! Tails Wx 03:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:04, 3 March 2023 review of submission by Innerharmony4u


I am writing a biography on an author who has published over 20 books, that I listed in the biography section of the article. but I was rejected because it was not neutral and verifiable. Should I link each book to where it is published, or an Amazon listing? Thank you for any help!

Innerharmony4u (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Innerharmony4u most of the content is unsourced and sources provided are primary and/or not independent (affiliated with her or interviews/her comments). What is needed is in-depth coverage about her from multiple secondary and independent reliable sources. S0091 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome - thank you! 174.130.96.5 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:41, 3 March 2023 review of draft by Yorkmich23


Yorkmich23 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm having a very hard time publishing Draft: Evan Winiker as it states there's not enough credible sources. However, I've cited articles and facts published my Billboard.com, Variety, and Reuters.com. Can you please advise?

Hi Yorkmich23! After taking a quick look, it looks like some of the sources in the draft are unreliable, including Discogs. I'll update when I'm done reviewing the draft! Tails Wx 23:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted on your talk page, Yorkmich23! Tails Wx 23:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help with this. I'd be happy to remove that as I thought that was a reliable source. Any other advice would be greatly appreciated. Yorkmich23 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22:38, 3 March 2023 review of submission by Curtmarsalis


Curtmarsalis (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Consideration for draft approval: Please revisit article for submission. Kandiid is a verifiable application that is available on iOS and Android. Since 2021, the application is rising in popularity with a 7% market share of social media platforms next to Twitter, Instagram and TikTok. The reference sources added are verifiable and without bias. The platform owner has feature on Forbes and international music star Soulja Boy is minority owner of the application. The included draft has been modified to include only the formation and current history that is verifed by references.

March 4

08:31:41, 4 March 2023 review of draft by Ali.saheb99


Ali.saheb99 (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:26:04, 4 March 2023 review of draft by 112.208.226.201


i am publishing AFC Submission i have sources 112.208.226.201 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:28, 4 March 2023 review of submission by SammyGWiki


Hello! I recently submitted my very first Wiki entry for Challenged Sailors San Diego. Unfortunately, my submission was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I thought I included 4 outside reliable and veriable sources in the Reference section of the new page I created. Challenged Sailors San Diego is a registered nonprofit giving people with disabilities the chance to sail. Thanks in advance for any advice on what I'm doing wrong with the References I used.

SammyGWiki (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SammyGWiki it has been declined again so I suggest reading through all the linked material in the decline message. What the organization says or wants to say about itself it not useful, nor are announcements about their events as neither is independent. Also, most of the content is unsourced so appears to based on your own knowledge, which is not allowed. Statements must be supported by published reliable sources to meet verifiability requirements. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:14:44, 4 March 2023 review of submission by Numioa in 22:14:44, 4 March 2023


Numioa (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 5

How do i find a more reliable source then the place itself

Hello, recently my draft was declined saying it needed for reliable source. Can anyone please help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St_Charbel%27s_College,_Punchbowl Randomeditor123218 (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== 07:43:27, 5 March 2023 review of submission by YollaHalal ==+

Hi, we at Manara University are requesting assistance in order to make our university page eligible and meets your conditions. YollaHalal (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

zero indication that the topic passes WP:NCORP and it is written like an advertisement. This is not a place to promote your university. Theroadislong (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:24, 5 March 2023 review of submission by Ckamani

I have recently joined this company that has employees of over 200 in 4 countries. YoY revenue is ~$25 Million yearly. I never knew of this company before and personally I felt skeptical that this could be one of those scams to loot money which many of my colleagues had similar experience as we did not knew if this company is legit. Putting this up on Wiki would bring that trust that its not fake.

Here is the website: https://www.brickendon.com/ Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/company/brickendon-consulting?originalSubdomain=in

PS: I am not paid to do this, nor I have any monetary benefit from listing this on Wiki. Its for a greater good (which is what I feel wiki stands for) BUT if you look at my history I genuinely tried helping with edits but to my surprise everything I post gets rejected so maybe this is not for me to contribute.

Chintan Kamani 09:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 10:47:20, 5 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by TrudiRose


Hello, I really need some assistance - I have been trying to do this for Colin for over a year. Can I ask for any specific tips and help? Can this draft go to someone else to finish please? I do want to admit defeat but I cannot do it. Thanks


TrudiRose (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, no evidence of passing WP:GNG and sources are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:54, 5 March 2023 review of draft by Catboy628


Hello, I have a problem here, it is about my article was being refused again. it says my sources are not reliable, but all the sources are coming from newspapers and even in many international film events, this film director even got many rewards in Hong Kong and in other countries, I am so confused and frustrated and don't know what to do next... is there anyone who can give me a hand on this, please? Much appreciated.

Catboy628 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First remove anything sourced to an interview, interviews are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Theroadislong. I go try again tomorrow. Appreciate that. Catboy628 (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:45, 5 March 2023 review of draft by DoubleTimeDesire

Hello, I was making an article about the story of a man named Gleb Korablev, and it got declined because it does not qualify for a wikipedia article. I understand this decision but if its okay, can you specify what i specifically need to work on when it comes to improving the article and getting the backstory out there. There arent many references online without NSFW content so I believe i will work on getting more references. But besides that, what should i change about the article that will make it qualify?

DoubleTimeDesire (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, i removed all references from youtube as they claimed it is not a reliable source. the only references from youtube that i shared was the link to his performances and plays which have zero adult content in them whatsoever. me and my friends double checked every article to make sure that they didnt have any adult content in there either. i didnt want to mention it in the article because they said i should keep it neutral so my only option is to mention it here. its somewhat frustrating. also, since the incident happened in russia its extremely hard to find any solid evidence. there is alot of speculation behind what happened, and i made sure to mention that what i said is only speculation and may not be true, and i wanted to put as much detail into the article and information as possible. DoubleTimeDesire (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:41, 5 March 2023 review of submission by Tonyspumoni65


Tonyspumoni65 (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) This is one of my friends and I think it would be funny for him to have a wiki page. Nobody else will ever see this page, so why does it matter if he isn't notable?[reply]

@Tonyspumoni65 I know this isn't what you will want to hear, but people need to be notable to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Saying "Nobody else will ever see this page, so why does it matter if he isn't notable" isn't a valid reason for inclusion. When they have ~3 reliable, independent and secondary sources proving notability, then maybe we can consider it. The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further at this time.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OFFICIAL, 5 March 2023 review of submission by 120.21.82.104


120.21.82.104 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article has been established as not notable here. You haven't addressed the points brought up in any of the declines or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramiz King. I would strongly advise that you take the advice given by @PK650: I would strongly suggest against resubmitting. The AfD plus all the decline templates and comments should give you an indication that several editors have disagreed with you when it comes to the subject's notability. This would clearly not survive another deletion discussion. Please stop and try to understand why you keep getting this declined, and perhaps try again in a few years' time if he garners more coverage.
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:28:21, 5 March 2023 review of submission by 2023JamesLeyInc.

I Want To Promote My Son's Website On Wikipedia 2023JamesLeyInc. (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is counterintuitive to the purpose of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place to promote anything. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:07, 5 March 2023 review of submission by Jamiep1234


Jamiep1234 (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted and salted as blatant advertising or spam, meaning you will not be able to create it again. Do not attempt to recreate it under a new name. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 6

07:23:33, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Lets xplore


Added citation as the previous review.

Lets xplore (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lets xplore No new references have been added, you've just added <sup>[1]</sup> in a few places, so we will not be reviewing it again. Additionally, if you have been paid to edit in a promotional way or you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it on your userpage. See the notice I've left on your talk page for more information. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:23, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Jupi2

Hallo, I've read the linked pages on Manual of Style and Citing Sources, but I am still not sure why my article draft has been declined. Also taking into consideration that I'm not a native English speaker I'd be very grateful for more specific advise on how I should improve my draft. Thank you very much! Jupi2 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jupi2, thanks for coming to the help desk! As far as I can see, the links to WP:MOS and WP:CS, and decline on the basis of NPOV by @Twinkle1990 seem... questionable. Twinkle, could you please explain the motivation behind this comment and decline? I see very little wrong with the citations and I see no major MOS issues here.
However, I wouldn't be prepared to accept just yet. I don't think this meets notability guidelines in it's current state. As anyone can place an obituary on www.legacy.com, it can't be considered reliable. Additionally, [1] is an interview, which typically can't be used to help notability. Finally, [2] seems to be non-independent, so it can't contribute towards notability. The other website appears to be offline (I'm getting a "This page is currently unavailable" error).
Overall, it's a well written draft, good job! If you can find some more reliable, independent and in-depth sources, go ahead and add them, and once you have ~3, click the resubmit button the top of the draft. If you have any questions, let me know or come back here to the help desk :). Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 09:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Pross is an issue for my see. And the referencing style is not per WP:CS. Hope it clears my take. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your short explanation @Twinkle1990. I don't believe there were enough NPOV issues to warrant a decline for that reason, but I respect your take. However, it would help if you could be more specific. I've checked a few of your recent reviews and many have a similar/identical comment. It makes it hard for people to understand what needs to be fixed. Remember, when we decline something, we do it because it needs improvement. How can it be improved if people don't know what needs improvement? The Manual of Style is ~25,000 words long, and WP:CS is ~10,000 words long. Please try and be more specific in the future. :)
@Jupi2, Twinkle1990 does bring up some points (although minor) which may need addressing, but wouldn't be a decline reason on their own. Bare URLs should typically be avoided, and there are some small issues with the prose. Phrases like He soon discovered his knack for technical and mechanical things aren't very encyclopedic, and should also be avoided, maybe with something like He soon developed an interest in technical and mechanical things. would work better. Again, these are minor things, they wouldn't warrant a decline by themselves and can be fixed in just a few minutes (if even that).
Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For @Jupi2's understanding, I have done a minor correction in referencing at this dif. Hope @Jupi2 will understand citing sources. References shouldn't be used within bracket, before . or before a comma. Twinkle1990 (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this reply doesn't really acknowledge what I've asked. We shouldn't be criticising newer users for these kind of mistakes. Maybe that kind of thing would matter at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, but this isn't what we should be asking new users to do, especially when there are more important notability issues. Even if we are giving feedback for this kind of thing, we should explicitly say it. Linking to just WP:MOS isn't particularly helpful when only 0.8% of the page covers this stuff. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 11:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the draft to pre-review stage. Hope this will resolve the issue. Some other reviewer will review. I won't. Thanks. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Twinkle1990 I just want to make sure you understand per WP:AFCR#General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission AfC reviewers should not be declining drafts based on MOS or other minor issues. You do not make it clear in your response so can you please confirm? S0091 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Will be careful on that. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Twinkle1990, have you made other decline comments based on minor CS/MOS issues? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly decline if the draft fails WP:THREE. I some, declines, failing notability, I commented where draft reads like essay or sourced without any accessible link given. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a quick note regarding drafts failing WP:THREE- it is an essay that asks editors to please consider it a request to post two or three, but no more, of what you consider to be the best sources for the page under discussion. It’s an excellent essay to ask draft creators to identify the best sources instead of inclusion of various clearly trivial/unreliable sources, but it isn’t really a standard that states three sources meeting GNG are required (see User:RoySmith/Three best sources/notes), so I’m not sure how it is “failed” necessarily. VickKiang (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft failed to prove notability per WP:RS. As you do, I too use to give note Please see WP:THREE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:31:12, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 77.125.175.231

I'm requesting a review since I don't understand what the problem is with the draft article I submitted. The article respects Wikipedia's standards and I have been taking into account all of the reviews I received from previous reviewers. I, again, modified the draft article today to respect as much as possible the guidelines and policy of Wikiepdia and would appreciate that the article be published (or that at least I know why it's not...). Thank you in advance.

77.125.175.231 (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed, as stated explicitely :) 212.143.68.89 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:39, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 2402:4000:11C0:7EC8:C807:A504:4872:1553


2402:4000:11C0:7EC8:C807:A504:4872:1553 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC) i want to publish my article. i don't know why you guys rejecting.[reply]

There are two major reasons. First is that there are *no* references in the article, and the second is that it isn't written like an encyclopedia article, it is written like a travel advertisement. Both may be fixable, but it would have to be completely rewritten.Naraht (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:46, 6 March 2023 review of draft by Contemporary asian artist


Contemporary asian artist (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have included enough materials in my draft: Ajay Sharma. Still its unaccepted. please guide me how to rephrase the article. Also I am unable to insert photographs in my article. How do I do this?

15:44:09, 6 March 2023 review of submission by 122.52.89.168


done im publish my AFC Submission122.52.89.168 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to resubmit your submission, please click the "Resubmit" button at the top of the draft. echidnaLives - talk - edits 22:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EchidnaLives ok 112.208.242.116 (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:34, 6 March 2023 review of submission by Websterpile

My article was declined because it's only about a politician and therefore, presumably hasn't had significant press mention to be notable. However, that's completely not the case. I have asked the reviewer to please take another look. Taken from same guidelines, it further says: The following are presumed to be notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Manny Santos has received substantial press coverage, as mayor and as candidate for U.S. Congress, including winning a major Connecticut Supreme Court case. This coverage has not only been locally, but also significant national and international, some of which has been cited in the article. If he is not notable, there should be fewer individuals listed in Wikipedia. Someone, please review and give me your take. Thanks! Websterpile (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove/replace www.facebook.com and linkedin.com sources, they are NOT reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs)

March 7

02:59:29, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Jwilbiz


I'm having trouble getting a company page for Let's Go Learn, Inc., approved. I've tried several times. It's a 20+ year old company, all of our competitors have Wikipedia pages, and the stated reason (not enough legitimate article sources) for declining approval of our page seem suspicious, since we have provided several already. What specifically is preventing our page from being approved? It was recently deleted by a bot, but I have requested the page to be reinstated.

Jwilbiz (talk) 02:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwilbiz Hello, welcome to the help desk!
First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Our articles exist because they're notable, not because companies have created them themselves or because companies have paid for them.
Second, we highly discourage people with a conflict-of-interest from creating articles or editing articles related to them, because it's very hard to stay neutral.
Now, the article was draftified, meaning it was moved to the draft area as it was not suitable for mainspace. This is because the subject of the article does not appear to be neutral, and notability seems unlikely. Notability is generally established with 3 reliable, independent and in-depth sources. This means paid articles, company websites, interviews and the like won't work. This is absolutely crucial to any article.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this will happen for Let's Go Learn. I know this isn't what you'll want to hear, but notability and neutrality are 2 of our core concepts. Please do not recreate the article in the mainspace, it will just be deleted or draftified. Thanks, echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad EchidnaLives! I realize all this. Let's Go Learn *invented* an entire new category of sophisticated, online, AI-driven, adaptive assessments for children in math and reading, years before other companies dipped their toes into this area tepidly. These assessments continue to this day to be some of the only ways teachers can accurately diagnose super-specific math and reading problems in children. The algorithms for these assessments were developed over the course of about 25 years by the Chair of the Graduate School of Education at UC Berkeley (at the time). So in other words, while the company is not the largest edtech company by a long shot, I believe it's empirically very notable. You are not the first editor at Wikipedia to question whether the company is notable, nor the first to imply that the article is less than objective. Yet nobody will tell me any basis for why they believe this to be true? If something is not 100% objective in the article, please point it out! Please explain how the company is not notable? I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but I am; I do not understand how so many less-notable companies can have wonderful, detailed pages in Wikipedia, while our draft page continues to be the subject of straw-man arguments which have no basis? I think I can improve the 3 needed sources, which will help. But geez. Thanks. Jwilbiz (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:44, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Evoqe.digital

{{Lafc|username=Evoqe.digital|ts=07:04:44, 7 March 2023|page=

Evoqe.digital (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@evoqe.digital: sorry, but Draft:Jubran Siddique has been rejected and will not be considered further. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:44, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Srvban


Hello, I'm usually on the German Wikipedia. I also wanted to publish one of my articles in English. Unfortunately it was rejected and to be honest I don't understand the reason for the rejection.

"This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter."

Unfamiliar with the subject? He was a painter who is named and mentioned in the usual catalogs of painters. Since he was a German-speaking painter, it is only usual that the corresponding sources are in German, of course. Is that the reason for the rejection? A painter listed in Thieme-Becker is directly relevant in the German-language Wikipedia ([3]). But I can't just rely on English-language sources, although some exist and are indicated in the article. It is difficult to obtain more information about the painter, as the reference works often only contain the biographical data of well-known but not famous painters. I need your help and would very thankfully if you can explain me my fault.

Srvban (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srvban: Hmmm. Usually when another reviewer has declined a draft I can understand why, but I can't quite see that there is any context missing in this draft, nor any other obvious reason to decline it. I'll ping the reviewer: @Praseodymium-141:, do you recall why you declined this draft? --bonadea contributions talk 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:54, 7 March 2023 review of submission by Anstil


I'm wondering how to interpret the policy that editors like myself who have been on Wikimedia projects for over a year, though just dipping in to it now and then, are blocked from creating articles? I'm not a newbie, so I was surprised that there seems no way for me to work on new articles about the Codex Sassoon in advance of the upcoming auction, where one of the codices is expected to be sold for the highest price of any manuscript ($50 million), but the other manuscripts I've been interested in reading up on, have no article despite being considered just as notable if not on sale.

What are the current criteria for being sufficiently trusted to write a Wikipedia article? I'm feeling I'd have more impact from editing a different project, or just giving up on creating articles as it's so demoralizing.

Anstil (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anstil I am not sure what this has to with AfC specifically but as far as I can tell you are not blocked and are WP:autoconfirmed so you can move the draft directly into mainspace (see WP:MOVE). Just be sure to clean up any of templates and that sort of thing after moving it. S0091 (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 8

04:03:43, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Ghostofdarrenseals


Ghostofdarrenseals (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)It is important to consider that there are many articles on Wikipedia about other TEDx events, such as TEDx SantaCruz or TEDx Lagos, which share many similarities with TEDxScotlandville. Therefore, it would be unfair and biased to single out TEDxScotlandville for deletion without considering these other articles.[reply]

Additionally, the TEDxScotlandville article is well-sourced and provides valuable information about the event, including its significance in being the first TEDx event in the state of Louisiana that a Mayor-President of a City-Parish and the Chief of Police has spoken at, and its commitment to promoting diverse perspectives and voices.

It is important to evaluate articles based on their own merits and adherence to Wikipedia's criteria for notability and encyclopedic reference, rather than any perceived bias. Therefore, deleting the TEDxScotlandville article solely based on its similarities with other articles would not be appropriate.

08:20:26, 8 March 2023 review of submission by Hyccc20


Hello, I recently revised the old draft I used to edit in the past since there has been more press coverage for the game I've been waiting for. If anyone could review the draft page, it would be great! Hyccc20 (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1143523320"