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 Ajshul (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 16 March 2023 (→March 16: fixed split subjects). 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 10

01:34:47, 10 March 2023 review of submission by Airborne84


After two declined submissions for this article, it is unclear to me why it is not considered notable. I'm requesting a more detailed rationale. Clarification will enable me and other editors to address those specific shortfalls. There are currently three in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent sources on this topic. There is a three-page article in Paper Mayhem magazine, a nearly full-page review in Space Gamer, and another 351-word stand-alone review in Gaming Universal—all magazines used as sources in many other play-by-mail game articles. What am I missing? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that all three publications are independent of the subject, and to my understanding are reliable sources for game-related topics. BOZ (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted it, since it seems you have found additional sources that weren't in the AfD discussion. If I'm not missing something it should be perfectly fine to directly create/move your own draft to mainspace since you have found additional sources since the AfD discussion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and much appreciated! I for one am more comfortable to have someone review a draft in that case who can be more objective than myself. :) BOZ (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Can someone help me create this page and let me know what the problem is With it not being accepted for publishing..? Many thanks 2A02:3032:D:EEB6:6479:56F:4242:A2F4 (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us which 'page' you're referring to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:53:06, 10 March 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:937B:1B00:7D56:1A56:4D46:D1C5


2600:4040:937B:1B00:7D56:1A56:4D46:D1C5 (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is just a copy of 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31:21, 10 March 2023 review of draft by Roosra


I would like some advice how to make this an accepted page. I understand Management 3.0 is a niche, and not as big as Scrum. Still, almost 18.000 people attended the workshops, 485 trainers, and active in 155 countries. Only. this is only published on their own website. I wanted to start small with this article, and it can grow in the future.

Roosra (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Roosra: we need to see what multiple independent and reliable sources have, purely of their own volition, said or written about the topic. This is called in the Wikipedia world 'notability', and is a core requirement for any article to be published, regardless of its size. Your draft currently cites no such sources, as all the references lead to Jurgen Appelo, therefore notability is not established, and there is no evidence that this term is being widely discussed rather than being merely a neologism. Please add sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria before resubmitting. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:50, 10 March 2023 review of draft by Devin Bender


Devin Bender (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:50, 10 March 2023 review of submission by Devin Bender



I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia page on the "August Wilson Journal." Already there is a Wikipedia page on August Wilson, however, my goal was to create a new page that was more focused on the journal. When I went to submit it I was told about my sources. I went ahead and revised my current sources (making sure the citation was correct) and added some more to back up my page. I am confused about if this is what needed to be fixed and just looking for a bit more clarification on this. Thank you, Devin Bender (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Devin Bender yes, sources are required not only support the claims made for verifiability but also to prove the subject is notable. Simply existing is not enough and notability is not inherited so its connection to August Wilson matters not. You may find this essay about establishing the notability for journals helpful. S0091 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 11

Why was my article declined

 Courtesy link: Draft:Good Party

My article was declined and i dont know why UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UrFathermaybeblind: it was declined for the reasons stated in the decline notice, specifically inside the two grey boxes within the large pink box; to wit, lack of evidence of notability, and promotional nature of the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cubic Castles

I'm posting this message in regards to the decline of my draft on the 2014 indie game Cubic Castles. Draft:Cubic Castles The decline message said I did not use reliable sources even though the sources I was using was from the official secondary wiki for the game. I apologize if I got anything wrong and if you can direct me on the requirements to get it published. Thanks! - Slug9k — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slug9k (talk • contribs) 10:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slug9k We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia draft or article, simply place the title of the target page in double brackets like this [[Joe Biden]] displays as Joe Biden. I've fixed this for you here.
Wiki type sources are not considered reliable sources as they are user-editable(just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source). An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game. For games, that is typically independent reviews/assessments of the game. If you have no independent sources, the game would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if this is wrong, but the wiki is made by the Cosmic Cow, (the developers of the game) and they have made it to where editing cannot be accessed by others. I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear before. Slug9k (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case then it is a primary source and still not does not count towards the inclusion criteria. We need to see others have taken the time right about the subject on their own accord and had it published by a reliable source. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:06, 11 March 2023 review of submission by Swiss Rhone Ranger

Thanks for reaching out. I'm not an editor nor do I wish to become one. We are wine growers in the northern Rhone in Switzerland. We are the Swiss Rhone Rangers. It's a not for profit organisation based in Switzerland founded 2 years ago. There are no other references to the Swiss Rhone Rangers as it's a new association. There are however Rhone Rangers ie. wine makers producing Rhone type wines in the US (California) in Austrialia and South Africa. In other words Swiss Rhone Rangers are simply Swiss wine growers growing Rhone wine. I find no references to this and I've searched wikipedia and found no references to the Swiss Rhone Rangers. We are Swiss. We are Rhone based and are Rangers. Any and all help appreciated. MTIA Swiss Rhone Ranger (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write articles about yourself. I think you would have more success in getting listed at https://www.winetourism.com/wineries-in-rhone-wine-region/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Cannon

Today I translated the Dutch article about Dolores Cannon to English. Soon a draft was made of it. I translated the text and sources literally, so I wonder why it was not approved? In my opinion, it is just a decent article. S. Perquin (talk) – 17:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S. Perquin each Wikipedia language is its own project with its own policies and guidelines. Generally, the English Wikipedia is more strict as far as notability guidelines. Please read through the linked documentation in the decline message which outlines the notability criteria. If you have additional questions, you can ask here or at the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:10:37, 11 March 2023 review of submission by Andrewsmith12345


Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewsmith12345 you are wasting your time more importantly the time of Wikipedia's volunteers . See also the deletion log. S0091 (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My time is just as important how can you work out that volunteers time is more important than mine Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are likely a sock, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Drug Addicts Anonymous so I will be filing an investigation. Best you just go away and save everyone time. S0091 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File your investigation and get a kick out of being a keyboard warrior. Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No help whatsoever on here about as much use as a chocolate teapot Andrewsmith12345 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 12

03:29:45, 12 March 2023 review of submission by Treepak411


Treepak411 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a brief article about my artistry and my own work and it was denied but I am an emerging talent who is trying very hard to get himself out there — I am on Spotify as a verified artist and on Soundcloud as well with a family is semi-famous. Please reconsider this article —I would so genuinely appreciate it.

@Treepak411: notability cannot be inherited from your family. I don't see how you meet the notability guide for musicians either. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia's autobiography policy. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok…well can you at least write one about my family '' like Steven Spolansky or Jodi Smith (née Spolansky) —I really need reach but I could really appreciate this potential opportunity Treepak411 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Treepak411 that is counterintuitive to the purpose of Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia on topics which are already considered notable by our standards. It is not meant to be an avenue of promotion or extending anyone's "reach" . Your time would be better spent elsewhere if this is your goal. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just please have an article? Treepak411 (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:02, 12 March 2023 review of submission by EstezaRemmy


Hi everyone on this help page, My first page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Iconic_Kent_Kris was declined for passing as a Wikipedia Article, and I am stuck on where I did not satisfy the requirements.

If any one here can be of help and assistance to have the page approved, I will be grateful.

Thanks in advance!

EstezaRemmy (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EstezaRemmy: the draft was declined for lack of notability; the sources cited are interviews and publicity pieces, whereas we need to see what independent and reliable sources have said about him, on their own initiative.
There is also unreferenced content in the draft, eg. the entire 'Career' section hasn't a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DoubleGrazing for the helpful feedback, so probably as it stands i will have to find more reliable sources before resubmitting for further review, right? EstezaRemmy (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EstezaRemmy: that's correct – you need to find more and better sources to establish notability (see WP:GNG for advice); and on a related but separate point, you need to support the contents better, using more citations. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:58:43, 12 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by DanielChutzpah


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. I am by the way associated with the subject of the article, as stated explicitely.


DanielChutzpah (talk) 09:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielChutzpah: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be considered further. If you wish to challenge that, you need to do so directly with the reviewer who rejected it, and you need to have substantive grounds for doing so.
I should probably add that if I were reviewing this now, I would be declining it for insufficient referencing, as quite a lot of the content is either unreferenced or referenced using inadequate sources. There are also many other issues with this. Which is to say, the draft would need quite a lot of work to bring it up to required standards, so don't expect it to be simply waved trough as-is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing and thanks for your reply and explanation.
Do you mind expanding a little on the referencing? Which parts are not referenced adequately according to you? Because as it is, everything looks very solid to me.
Please feel free to answer me in private if this forum is not appropriate.
Thank you in advance.
?
? 2A0D:6FC2:5FB2:B400:C9A3:A3A1:1F33:81A2 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too much into it, as this has been rejected and as such is not viable content, but:
  • Sources like Amazon, Baidu, PRNewsWire and YouTube are generally not considered reliable.
  • Forbes' editorial content is usually reliable, but their contributors are often not independent, and their writings are not subject to editorial oversight; see WP:FORBESCON.
  • Anything written by Arieli herself needs to be corroborated by an independent source. For example, the statement that she served as a Lieutenant in Unit 8200 is referenced only by an article she wrote.
  • Per WP:BLP, all material statements, anything potentially contentious, and private personal details such as DOB, educational achievements and family members all need to be backed up by clearly citing reliable published sources.
My hunch is, you've written what your client or employer wanted you to write, and then cited some sources to support some of it. What you should do instead is summarise what reliable published sources have said about her, no more, no less, citing the sources as you go. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. DanielChutzpah (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:51, 12 March 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:937B:1B00:8D0F:1F63:EB74:6FE4


2600:4040:937B:1B00:8D0F:1F63:EB74:6FE4 (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this draft has been rejected.
Secondly, this is just a copy of an existing article, as pointed out in the review comments, as well as on this page two days ago.
And thirdly, you don't ask a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:22, 12 March 2023 review of draft by WriterGP


Query about which citation form to use.

I am quoting from an article accessed via the British Newspaper Archive. Is this the correct way of citing?

[1]

Another citation for an article, accessed the same way, refers to an article with no title. How should I cite this?

Many thanks.

References

  1. ^ Christmas, Linda (1969-03-07). "It's all a dream to Irene Evans..." Middlesex County Times. Retrieved 2023-03-08.

WriterGP (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:55, 12 March 2023 review of draft by Antivoid


I tried to submit an earlier version of this draft, but it was rejected due to lacking sources. The original article had no sources so I had to look for some. I found two of them, but I'm not sure if I'll need to add more sources.

Antivoid (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Antivoid: the draft has only two sources, which isn't really enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. Moreover, it has only three citations, leaving the vast majority of the content unsupported, begging the obvious question – where is all this information coming from? So yes, you will need to add more sources, and cite them throughout the text, so that it is clear which source supports what content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So will I be able to have a minor page if I add kore resources (about two) Treepak411 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Treepak411 Is all of the text in the draft backed by just the two sources you listed? If so, that's likely not broad enough coverage to prove notability of the topic.
On the other hand, if the text in the draft comes from different places, then you are not understanding what DoubleGrazing is explaining. Every fact or assertion in the draft needs a reference. For example, the first two sentences in the section "Background" need one reference per sentence, or, if the statements in both sentences are found in the same publication, then one reference might cover both sentences. If everything comes from your two sources, you should still add a reference for each fact, preferably with page numbers that show where in the source the information came from. See referencing for details.
The sentences in the other two sections also need references, even if they are from the (only two) sources. David10244 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:58, 12 March 2023 review of submission by PIRINATION

Hello! My article was denied and I'm curious as to why. Thanks!

PIRINATION (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PIRINATION Welcome to the Teahouse. The reasons why are given in the big gray box in the draft, after the words "Submission declined". In that explanation, the words or phrases in blue (or possibly purple) are clickable links. Clicking those links, and reading all of the information given, should answer your question.
Writing a new article is hard until you are familiar with all of the rules and guidelines. I'll give a partial answer to your question: several sections in your draft have no citations. For example, where did the information in the "Early life" section come from? Where did you learn all of that? The assertions in that section (and throughout the draft) must be backed with references showing the sources of the info. David10244 (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


March 14

Request on 01:28:27, 14 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by UrFathermaybeblind


I want to know what was the reason for the decline and how could i get it published


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please tell me how can i get this published all the things are provided the references the website what is the problem then can you advise me to get it published


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UrFathermaybeblind: the reason for the declines has been provided by the reviewers, namely that the draft is virtually unreferenced with no evidence of notability, as well as being promotional in nature. In any case, this has been rejected and won't be considered further at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:36, 14 March 2023 review of submission by Z812483032


I have rewritten the content that may have caused controversy, so I have resubmitted it for review and inspection. I would greatly appreciate it if you could guide me on how to improve the content I submit. Thank you.

Z812483032 (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z812483032: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further; not because it "caused controversy", but because it is not written as an encyclopaedia article (see WP:NOT). It is also entirely unreferenced, suggesting that it may be original research or synthesis. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:02, 14 March 2023 review of draft by Ben wid


Hi, I created a draft (Draft: Christoph Ingenhoven). One reaction to that was negative, which I can't understand. Will my contribution be checked again? I would be happy to explain why I consider the article to be suitable and important information for the English Wikipedia.

Ben wid (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben wid: it's not clear whether you already resubmitted the draft or something just went wrong with the AfC tags, but either way it is back in the pending pool, so I would suggest you simply wait for the re-review. (BTW, please don't edit the AfC tags, they form a record of the draft's progress through the system. Thanks.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ino. it seems to be working now Ben wid (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:51:39, 14 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Georgealexandar



George alexandar A (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgealexandar: you don't ask a question, but your sandbox draft was rejected and deleted. Please note that this is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or classified ads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:45, 14 March 2023 review of submission by Paulboy


Hello! I am working on creating a page for Camila Coelho, one of the biggest creators and entrepreneurs from the original 2009 blogger era that is a top creator to this date (was on Forbes 2022 creator list, CEO of two businesses), but I am running into some trouble despite having about 30 credible sources. Any help would be appreciated. She has been on GMA, CBS This Morning, interviews with Vogue U.S., Elle U.S., InStyle U.S., Harper's Bazaar U.S., People Magazine U.S., Business Insider U.S., Women's Wear Daily (WWD), Business of Fashion, and many more, including far spanning International titles. WWD has ranked Camila as the talent who brings the most media value to New York and Paris Fashion Week multiple times in the last 2 years. I have found many, many smaller creators in the same space who have lenghty pages, while Camila has been a prominent creator for 13 years. Please note there is only one Forbes contributor interview, the Forbes lists are from the editorial board, including financial audits, and are completely separate from contributors.

Paulboy (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulboy: you've improved the draft, and resubmitted it; now you need to wait for its next review. Or do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:58:20, 14 March 2023 review of draft by WikiNikki0127


Hello. I submitted an article for review on 3/10. I've been working to get this article published for a while now. I believe I had finally removed all of the "nonreliable" sources and included all of the reliable sources possible. I was waiting to receive the email that it was declined or approved, but I never got one. I logged back in today to see the status and it shows that I never submitted it on 3/10 on the main draft page. I have to look at the View History page to see that. My View History page has strange notes that I do not understand...any help would be appreciated.

curprev 06:20, 14 March 2023‎ 174.212.224.64 talk‎ 6,733 bytes −448‎ →‎Notable Alumni: not notable. See WP:ALUMNI and WP:WTAF undo 12 March 2023 curprev 13:52, 12 March 2023‎ 174.212.224.64 talk‎ 7,181 bytes +335‎ This draft has been rejected. Do not resubmit. undo Tag: Undo 10 March 2023 curprev 16:19, 10 March 2023‎ WikiNikki0127 talk contribs‎ 6,846 bytes +63‎ Submitting using AfC-submit-wizard undo Tag: Reverted curprev 16:18, 10 March 2023‎ WikiNikki0127 talk contribs‎ m 6,783 bytes −398‎ removed nonreliable sources. undo Tags: Reverted

WikiNikki0127 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiNikki0127: yes, an IP editor had interfered with the AfC templates (possible vandalism), but it was later reverted, and the draft is back in the pending pool awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:13, 14 March 2023 review of submission by Ttwkr


Dear reviews, I think there's a huge mistake here. He's a notable person, probably there's a need for more sources. Let me know

Thank you Ttwkr (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ttwkr: what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ttwkr Unfortunately, your draft has been rejected because the reviewer feels that the subject is not sufficiently notable. In fact, it was rejected in September 2022. I am not a reviewer, but my impressions are: The first cite is to Twitter, which is not reliable since there is no fact-checking. The second source talks about Covid, but as far as I can see, it doesn't have in-depth discussion of the subject. Although references in other languages are acceptable, I personally can't evaluate them. Rejection means that the draft won't be considered further. If new sources have appeared, you can provide them, and ask the reviewer (I had the wrong user here, see below) if he or she will take another look. David10244 (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the correct reviewer @Tymon.r. David10244 (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

Request on 01:47:15, 15 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by UrFathermaybeblind


i am not resumiting the article it is automatically getting resubmited and i dont know why


UrFathermaybeblind (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UrFathermaybeblind: yes you are, by messing with the AfC templates; please stop. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:40:07, 15 March 2023 review of submission by SalahEldin1

Hi, my draft has been in pending state for over 4 months. Please can you help. (SalahEldin1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)) SalahEldin1 (talk) 04:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SalahEldin1: it was submitted 2½ months, not "over 4 months", ago. And drafts are not reviewed in any order. So you should just wait until a reviewer gets around to it. Although I must say you're not helping things with the REFBOMBING; eg. the statement Azizi Developments is a Dubai-based property developer surely doesn't need eight sources to support it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:53, 15 March 2023 review of submission by Alexandrabkk


Hello, My topic has been rejected because not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think is wrong, it's a young political of the opposition who need space, including on Wikipedia. Most of articles he has are in thai langage, so I focused on english langage coverages. Still have a look on his name he does have press coverage. How can I do to improve my article to make is sufficiently notable? The election are coming soon and a wikipedia page is a big help inside the country but also outstide. Many thanks.

Alexandrabkk (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexandrabkk: Wikipedia is not here to provide "space" or otherwise help promote anyone or anything. Either this person is notable based on existing published sources, or they're not. And if they're not, no amount of editing can make them so.
As for sources, these don't need to be in English, Thai sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the WP:GNG standard (= independent and reliable secondary published sources).
In any case, as this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:04, 15 March 2023 review of draft by BHKendler161148


I, as editor, have been asked to find at least three further sources. I suggest that as Giles Marsh played one Top-Flight Match and played for a club that went bankrupt 130 years ago there are NO other sources other than those I have used. I respectfully request Giles Marsh is reinstated despite its limitations. Also it is suggested that it does not link to other articles. With due deference to Wikipedia I suggest that is not correct as I have linked the article to Accrington FC the team he played against that he was a Goalkeeper and to Thorneyholme Road, the home ground of Accrington are four examples.

BHKendler161148 (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BHKendler161148 this draft has not been submitted for review. It appears this was sent to draft by an WP:NPP reviewer so I suggest addressing any questions or concerns with that editor directly, who left a detailed note on your talk page. However, generally if there are no additional sources that indicates an article is not warranted. S0091 (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:35, 15 March 2023 review of draft by Rohin vaidya


Submission was denied due to inadequate sources and because the organization did not have an influence outside of the university. However, many other student sections have been given Wikipedia pages despite not having an influence outside of the university or having as many sources on their page (see Oakland Zoo, The Show (SDSU Student Section), etc.). What can we change so that we get our submission accepted?

Rohin vaidya (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rohin vaidya: what you can and should change is cite sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. You currently cite no such source. (As for "many other student sections" etc., this is neither here nor there; please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:06, 15 March 2023 review of draft by Kj2023


Kj2023 (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change the name of this page to Christian Cash Harrison in order to disambiguate from another article talking about someone else named Christian Harrison

23:22:11, 15 March 2023 review of draft by TexasEditor1


When my draft was declined, I received the following comments: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics).

Comment: Need in-depth coverage about him. Also, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. S0091 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand this, as I referenced several articles from mainstream publications that showed significant coverage of the subject, in interviews and independently, including the Cleveland Plain Dealer and it's Clevelanddotcom website, and books from reputable publishers. I also used other reputable publications such as a major university's alumni magazine. I'm quite confused about the idea that interviews don't constitute worthy coverage; I've built my entire journalism career writing stories about people based on interviews and research, many of which are cited on Wiki pages. And some of the interviews I used are part of bigger feature stories that include valid reviews, quotes from other people, etc. If significant coverage of living people cannot include interviews, what about the reviews and other pieces I included? I took care to cite — and verify — very reputable and reliable sources, not blogs or fly-by-night publications. I've also taken pains to archive everything. I understand mentions "in passing" aren't considered major coverage, but I included those to provide context and verification not only of information, but of relevance as a subject. I'm having a hard time comprehending how this person, who has cowritten major hits for superstars, had a foundational role in a major motion picture (as acknowledged by the director in linked references) and had a role in inspiring one of Bruce Springsteen's biggest hits — and is cited on many other Wikipedia pages — isn't worthy of a Wikipedia page. What can I do to turn this into a page that will be accepted? TexasEditor1 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

Administrators only? — 04:02:01, 16 March 2023 review of submission by Ajshul

When I tried to create the page, it wouldn't let me, informing me that only an administrator could create it. Thus, I created a draft; should I submit it through AfC, or through a different process (directly to administrators...?)?

Thanks! Ajshul<talk> 04:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1144889526"