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 Paradiselost79 (talk | contribs) at 20:15, 4 April 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


March 29

01:34:35, 29 March 2023 review of draft by Owlz r radz

why cant i access my draft when im trying to write down the holiday tradions on google docs

Owlz r radz (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owlz r radz: the reason why you cannot access this draft is because it has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:46:03, 29 March 2023 review of submission by Mathiasferre

I dont understand why Nordisk Film & TV Fond gets declined. Please see; https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordisk_Film_%26_TV_Fond

Mathiasferre (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathiasferre: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice – did you read it? That is, there is no evidence that the subject is notable, and because the sources are primary, they cannot be used to independently verify the information. (The fact that an article on this subject may exist in other language versions of Wikipedia is neither here nor there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:00, 29 March 2023 review of submission by 118.211.45.84

118.211.45.84 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:45:56, 29 March 2023 review of submission by DoctorDaleks

Hey, can I please get some clarification on why the article was declined(within seconds) I'm wondering what makes it not notable? is it the text, sources or subject matter?


Kind thanks for your help

DoctorDaleks (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DoctorDaleks: it is the sources; notability is established by citing appropriate sources, from which it follows that lack of such sources is what makes a subject non-notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:56, 29 March 2023 review of draft by Dharable


I am looking for advice on how to ensure that this does not read as an advertisement and has a completely neutral point of view. Thanks for your help!

Dharable (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharable: the fundamental problem with this draft is that it gives no reason why this, seemingly ROTM business should be included in a global encyclopaedia. Just existing isn't a reason, nor is offering some services. Therefore, as it stands, this draft appears to just try to 'make people aware' of the company, which is pretty much the definition of promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:00, 29 March 2023 review of submission by GSH2023

GSH2023 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:17, 29 March 2023 review of draft by Connex Global


Hello. I need help understanding the reasons why my article was denied. The message says it needs more links. How many links? Do you have a more specific suggestion?

Connex Global (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Connex Global It is not just the number of sources ("links") but the quality of the sources. The sources you have are poor, either not reliable and/or not independent. For example, Canada Homestay Network is neither reliable (no editorial oversight or history of fact checking) nor independent (they offer the service so are affiliated with them). Generally it is best to stick with mainstream media sources, such as reputable newspapers. I suggest thoroughly reading the the sourcing and notability criteria for companies. S0091 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

My draft declined

Draft:Exim Bank of India

why my draft was declined and what it is there to improve? Please someone help me... DilipSpatel (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DilipSpatel: it was declined for the reasons given by the reviewer in the decline note and the accompanying message – did you read those? In any case, you have resubmitted it, so now you just need to wait for it to be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DilipSpatel (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DilipSpatel Something I noticed that you should fix is the long string of references you have put in the "Chronology" heading. Move them to apropriate places in the body text, or remove them if they are redundant. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok DilipSpatel (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:44, 30 March 2023 review of submission by EvolutionSOS

Hi,

I'm confused. I submitted my draft but at one point move it to the sandbox as it asked me to. But then I think it went back into drafts. I'm just trying to get the article approved, but I don't know the status of it or what I need to do.

Please help!

The article is a biography about Jonathan Richard Truss. EvolutionSOS (talk) 10:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EvolutionSOS:
You had created this draft in your user page, which isn't the place for developing article content, so it was moved soon after to its current location in the draft space. There is a redirect from your user page to that draft, which could be deleted. The draft is currently awaiting review.
You also created a blank sandbox at User:EvolutionSOS/sandbox, and for some reason submitted that for review on 10 March, but it was declined as we cannot consider blank drafts.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your reply. To clarify, there's nothing I need to do now then? Apart from wait! Many thanks EvolutionSOS (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:33, 30 March 2023 review of submission by Laughingcloud917

I need help getting this page published. What, exactly do I need to include/omit in order to correct this page. Girl Named Nino is a legitimate working artist with releases, and tour dates along with collaborations as an indie musician. Thanks!

Laughingcloud917 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable independent sources, Spotify, Bandcamp and Wikipedia are NOT reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:18:36, 30 March 2023 review of draft by Franny Kelly


Franny Kelly (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Franny Kelly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:41, 30 March 2023 review of draft by Nietabieta


Hi, I am working on responding to the comments provided and will edit the article accordingly. Thank you for the feedback.

Is there a way to link my English draft version of the article to one that was written in French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Ferman?

Nietabieta (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nietabieta, the interlanguage links can only be added after the article is published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


March 31

00:01:56, 31 March 2023 review of draft by 122.53.46.31


my draft as 10 refs and done 122.53.46.31 (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question you wish to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed, on two different dates I believe, at the Teahouse. You have been given answers over there. Let us know if you have trouble understanding the info you have been given. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now at AfD. David10244 (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And rejected. David10244 (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:08:46, 31 March 2023 review of draft by IrisSpine

Hi there! I am trying to edit the page Michael Alan Herman and I received a notice that the sources are not professional/all primary, but I included sources from Deadline and Fangoria. I'm curious about what I am doing wrong. Am I citing the sources wrong? Thank you for your time and help!

IrisSpine (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IrisSpine: notability per WP:GNG requires multiple published sources that are at once secondary, published, reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage of the topic. The three sources you're citing in this latest version of the draft are all about the podcast, making only passing mentions of Herman, and they therefore fail the significant coverage requirement of the notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate your time and expertise here. I have more sources in there that discus Michael's career now. IrisSpine (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:00:46, 31 March 2023 review of draft by Kaunitzj


I am new to Wikipedia and thought I would submit an article on this topic of some popular interest not currently covered in Wikipedia. In light of reviews which declined the submission I have modified the article and/or otherwise responded to the issues raised by various reviewers on their talk pages. However the article was then declined by other reviewers who do not seem to be familiar with the topic or my previous responses.

I thought that Wikipedia would welcome such submissions providing user friendly explanations of technical topics in the public domain and their history. However, the predisposition appears to be to find reasons to reject articles and the whole process of publication to me is a bit mysterious. I feel like I am running an interminable obstacle course blindfolded. It seems any of many reviewers can decline an article, one after the other, but it is not clear to me who is able to or will eventually approve it. Can you please clarify this and point me to the review/approval process for draft articles?

I recognize that Wikipedia wishes to exercise quality control and have read and strived to conform to guidelines. However, this seems to be a case of throwing out the baby with the the bathwater. Had it not been for a finally realistic supportive comment on the talk pages of the article I would have already given up.


John Kaunitz (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaunitzj: besides voicing your dissatisfaction with various aspects of Wikipedia, do you have a question you wish to ask? The draft is awaiting review, and its talk page is already filled with debate, which I'm sure we don't need to repeat here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not voiced “dissatisfaction with various with various aspects of Wikeipidea. If I did not think it was a worthwhile enterprise I would not have bothered to contribute and make donations and I did ask a question: can you please clarify who can and will approve articles and point me to the review/approval process for draft articles? John Kaunitz (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaunitzj: When you submit a draft for review, any Articles for Creation reviewer is able to review it and accept, decline, or reject it. You have submitted your draft for review, which means that it will be reviewed at some point – that is really all that any of us knows, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 17:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information you provided, much appreciated. I have also discovered/read the tab at the top of this page Reviewing Instructions: Helper Script that was very informative and helpful in answering my question. I followed the approval flow chart and it seemed to me the article passed the tests therein. Hopefully the next reviewer will agree. Perhaps you can also tell me or point to information: How do the reviewers who can approve Articles for Creation qualify/selected? John Kaunitz (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:13, 31 March 2023 review of draft by Anupamashankarnewgen


My page that I have submitted has got rejected, need help with understanding the same. Anupamashankarnewgen (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupamashankarnewgen: it hasn't been rejected. Reject means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can. Which you have. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Anupamashankarnewgen (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Anupamashankarnewgen The references are not properly formatted. Please see WP:REFB. David10244 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:56:12, 31 March 2023 review of submission by Hemantpateria

Why My article is rejected, I wrote the content for someone else, Also shared too much resources, still it declined by wikipedia

Hemantpateria (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemantpateria: it hasn't been rejected, it has been declined. And the reason for this was that it is poorly sourced and promotional.
When you say you "wrote the content for someone else", what do you mean by that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help me in approving that content Hemantpateria (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemantpateria: you will simply need to summarise, in your own words, what you can find about the subject in independent and reliable sources (which definition excludes many of the ones you are currently citing), and do so in a neutral and factual manner without any embellishments or 'spin'. Note that this will mean a fairly comprehensive rewrite of the draft.
First, though, you need to provide more details of your relationship with the subject of this draft. I have posted another message on your user talk page about conflicts of interest (COI), which judging by your earlier comments you may have, even if you're not being paid to write this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:03, 31 March 2023 review of draft by Emrekaracaoglu


Hello, the article I have submitted on the Turkish poet "Yavuz Özdem" has been flagged yet again. This is the warning from the editor: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." I reviewed this article earlier and did include online citations as required, by referring to "referencing for beginners" and other existing articles. However, the article has been flagged for removal again. I sincerely do not understand what is wrong with the article when it does include inline citations. Your help would be appreciated.

Emrekaracaoglu (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has only one source and that is not enough for a WP:BLP each substantive fact will require sourcing and you need to show how they pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Emrekaracaoglu: it includes precisely one inline citation, which is nowhere near enough to support the contents. Please see WP:BLP. Basically, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported with inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:15, 31 March 2023 review of submission by Narwar001

I’m requesting for re-review it because I wanted to publish an article Narwar001 (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narwar001: there's really nothing there to review. This is not a viable article draft. See also WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:03, 31 March 2023 review of submission by Amol1332

Amol1332 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Amol1332: you don't ask a question, but your draft, such as it is, has been rejected and won't be considered further. I say 'such as it is', because there is very little there, and certainly not enough to be a viable article. In any case, it seems you have attempted to write about yourself, which is very strongly advised against; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

02:27:18, 1 April 2023 review of submission by 24.90.154.26

24.90.154.26 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. And while I can see some sources have been added, they consist of candidates lists and social media accounts, none of which contribute towards notability in the slightest. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:54, 1 April 2023 review of submission by Diiinall

whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy was draft declined? Diiinall (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diiinall: if you wish to be blocked, just ask an admin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Diiinall (talk) 11:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I couldn't tell if this was the public sandbox, or if there is a user named "sandbox". If you edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sandbox&action=edit, it starts with a block message. Is this normal? David10244 (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@David10244: this user had linked to the shared public sandbox (per above), but the thing I had rejected, which caused them to come here, was another user's sandbox (ie. not theirs). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing No wonder I was confused. Thanks! David10244 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


14:18:24, 1 April 2023 review of submission by Earthianyogi

 Courtesy link: Draft:Catharine West

Earthianyogi (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Earthianyogi? You have resubmitted the draft, and it is awaiting review.
There are quite a few formatting and structural issues with it, which aren't a decline reason but need to be sorted out all the same. I'll post a comment there with more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the message. that would be very helpful. Cheers. Earthianyogi (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Wiki reviewers have a minimum number of articles published to be allowed to accept/reject articles? thanksEarthianyogi (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put your questions into the section headings. And please don't open a new section with each comment, just add to the existing thread. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Earthianyogi User AngusWOOF is an experienced editor who has been here for 10 years, with 222,000 edits. Is that enough? David10244 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I value AngusWOOF's comments and experience even though they are unclear. Having 222,000 edits does not answer my question at all! Earthianyogi (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51:10, 1 April 2023 review of submission by Thehoaderr

Please tell me how to go about it, My intentions were not to promote the subject of my content Thehoaderr (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehoaderr: whether that was your intention or not, what you ended up with is pure promo piece, and an unreferenced one at that. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left my promo bio deletion notice for creator's perusal. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:31:51, 1 April 2023 review of draft by 2601:58C:C100:9880:5440:16FB:4E13:BED9

I am asking about whether I was right in my draft of "Kryss Shane" or if I did something wrong and, if I did, what it is so I can fix it to get my page approved.

2601:58C:C100:9880:5440:16FB:4E13:BED9 (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you certainly weren't "right in [your] draft", given that it is highly promotional, completely unreferenced, and riddled with spammy external links. Please see WP:YFA for advice on article creation, and WP:REFB on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused on what makes it promotional. The only reason I put the links to the books was because I thought I had to site my sources as proof of her authorship. I also sited the tv show she is on and the awards she won because I thought that was supposed to be listed. I was using the page for Sue Sanders as a guide since they are colleagues but in different countries. 2601:58C:C100:9880:307F:4269:CD4F:24C5 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the information that DoubleGrazing linked? That should answer your questions. David10244 (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2

00:55:37, 2 April 2023 review of submission by 1mariogamr

1mariogamr (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@1mariogamr: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:57:56, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Neogenesiscreation


Hello, this is my first time creating a stub and I just wanted to know if someone could give me there thoughts on improvement or if it would be okay to publish as a stub I'm very interested in adding more to this article over time but I want to make sure I'm going in the right direction.


Neogenesiscreation (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is it you wish to ask, @Neogenesiscreation? You have submitted the draft and it is awaiting review. (And not that it matters, but this is too big to be classified as a stub, just FYI.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me how much needs to be deleted for it to be considered a stub? Neogenesiscreation (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Neogenesiscreation: why would you specifically want to create a stub? You still need to be able to demonstrate notability and support the contents with reliable sources. All 'stub' means is that the information may not be as complete as you would expect in a fully-fledged article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I said as a stub was because I was unsure if the topic of an up and coming artist had enough links for it to be publicly be accepted as a full article for the main space of wikipedia and it's an article I was interested in adding to over time.
Alright I will add more notable sources thank you for the insights on a stub. Neogenesiscreation (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Neogenesiscreation: just bear in mind that Wikipedia doesn't really deal in 'up and coming' anything; we are never the first to report on a topic, and instead only summarise what other, reliable and independent sources have published before. From this it follows that Wikipedia cannot be used to proactively build someone's reputation, only to reflect a reputation that has already been built elsewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Neogenesiscreation FYI, getting a "stub" accepted for publication is not (or should not be) easier than getting an article accepted. They all need appropriate references. David10244 (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:16, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Thewisebaghera


Thewisebaghera (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Thewisebaghera? There is no draft at Draft:Claudia Carpentier, and doesn't look like there ever was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ths draft about Claudia Carpenter is confusingly at Draft:Chris_Wong. David10244 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:30:24, 2 April 2023 review of draft by 172.218.102.186

I want to know how to make the sources in my article on Phelan Porteous more reliable. 172.218.102.186 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to make the sources more reliable; the sources cited in this draft are all user-generated, meaning anyone can publish anything they want, and therefore we cannot trust any of them. What you need is to use different sources, instead; ones that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, such as proper newspapers and magazines, major TV and radio programmes, books (not self-published ones), and other such media outlets. Find a BBC radio documentary, New York Times article, and Deutsche Welle TV programme about this Phelan Porteous person, and you're golden! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:33:17, 2 April 2023 review of draft by JennaHTN


Hello, could you help me / explain to me how to improve this article so that it falls within the eligibility criteria

JennaHTN (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JennaHTN, the first source is a blog so not reliable, the second source is a brief mention, the third source says nothing about him really and the fourth source is YouTube which does not help with notability. In addition, much of the content is unsourced and nothing suggest he meets the notability guidelines. S0091 (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:33:44, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Applemcg


I believe the Draft had overcome two of the reasons for rejection, the Archaeology article is both

reliable -- a source for scientists in the field independent -- the family member quoted was contacted by the magazine,


Also, I've just resubmitted the Draft with what I hope are improved citations.

Applemcg (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Applemcg you have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take a look but I will note that what his family says or anyone affiliated with him is not useful for notability, even if interviewed/quoted by an otherwise reliable source. The coverage needs to be entirely independent. S0091 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:01:07, 2 April 2023 review of draft by Applemcg


I've resubmitted the draft, included more recent citations, then highlighting my belief the references are

  • indpendent,
  • substantial, and
  • verifiable


Applemcg (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. S0091 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:55, 2 April 2023 review of submission by Warezalex911

Warezalex911 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Warezalex911 what Bird has said or written or those affiliated with him (employers, etc.) is not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. The draft is rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am requesting a re-review as Daniel Bird is a notable British journalist with media coverage on both traditional media and broadcast. There are more than enough sources quotes, both individual and mainstream.

@Warezalex911 I have looked at the sources in the draft and agree with the rejection. None of the sources satisfy our requirements for being considered independent or reliable as they are either connected to subject or written by the subject. It has now been rejected and will not be considered any further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 3

Request on 05:59:27, 3 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Turki.aljameel3200

I need to correct my article as per the guidelines, still some points i didn't understand why my article got rejected. So I kindly requested you to guide me in this

Turki.aljameel3200 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Turki.aljameel3200: this draft has been rejected and is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:59:49, 3 April 2023 review of submission by Buligio

Hello, I'll be thankful for advice on how to resolve the limited but not irrelevant "show of significant coverage". The subject is one of only two women of her generation that does have an entry in Mexico's national aviation biographical dictionary (Ruiz Romero, Manuel (2002). Diccionario Biográfico Aeronáutico de México. Biblioteca de la Historia Aeronáutica de México. p. 40). It seems evident that notable women biographies are underrepresented in Wikipedia because women had to compete on unleveled fields with many disadvantages, one of them being precisely the lack of contemporary recognition of their contributions to their fields and therefore the impossibility of finding references. Nonetheless, as already stated above, the subject does have an entry in the national aviation biographical dictionary. On the second observation, I will also be most grateful for precise observations of what is wrong in the witting that does not conform with the required formal tone, so that I may amend that issue without guesswork. Buligio (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Buligio: most of the draft content is unreferenced, and many of the sources cited don't seem to be about Carranza. Which begs two questions – where is all this information coming from, and how do we know it's true? Perhaps you've misunderstood the way Wikipedia works: you don't just write what you know (or what you want) about a topic, and then find some sources that support the odd bit of your writing here and there. You read what reliable sources have said about a topic, summarise (in your own words) the salient points, and cite your sources as you go so the reader can verify that those sources really say such things. Which takes us back to my earlier point: if that isn't the process you followed (as suggested by the fact that you cannot find sources to cite), then where did all this information come from?
As for the promotional, non-encyclopaedic language, this can be found throughout the draft, but I will pick out a few examples to give you an idea of the sort of expressions we don't want to see:
  • "woman aviator, entrepreneur and activist who successfully defied a male dominated field"
  • "suddenly found herself stranded in Buenos Aires and in fear of being caught in the ensuing dragnet"
  • "Irma's attitude towards life: valor, ideals, determination, caring about others, hard work and a smile"
Also, the many instances of peacock language such as "trailblazer", "historic", "very first" (just "first" will do), etc. All these can go into a magazine feature about her, or perhaps her obituary, but they do not belong in an encyclopaedia article. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing: Thank you very much for your observations. Buligio (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:19, 3 April 2023 review of submission by Bberry222

The person mentioned in this article is already popular in Pakistan and is widely watched in the country. He hosts shows on Madani channel and also has a Youtube channel. Bberry222 (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of which necessarily makes them notable and your only source is a YouTube video which is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bberry222: being "popular" and having a YouTube channel are irrelevant; we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:16:36, 3 April 2023 review of submission by Wellington Victory

Wellington Victory (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wellington Victory: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:15, 3 April 2023 review of draft by 174.137.217.177


Hi, I was tasked to create a page for Marie-Eva Volmar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marie-Eva_Volmar). The page is declined because of lack of notable sources. How can we change that? Thanks a lot for your help.

174.137.217.177 (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with: you "were tasked" by whom?
Next question: who is "we" in "how can we change"?
And as for the draft, it needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner, summarising what reliable published sources have said about the subject, citing those sources as you go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"were tasked" by my PR Manager and "we" represents the PR company and I 174.137.217.177 (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty neutral. Mind to give an example of what you mean by "more neutral"? Thank you 174.137.217.177 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of it reads like a PR piece (the entire last paragraph of Early life and everything after), most of it is unsourced and the sources used are not reliable. There is little salvageable. Take the time to read through everything in the decline message. S0091 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before you do any further editing, you must make a paid-editing disclosure. I have posted a message on your talk page with advice on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:53, 3 April 2023 review of draft by Woiakl


I'd like to add the following, but it's too complicated, I'm no programmer. Could you help me?

Woiakl (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woiakl: I wouldn't worry about that yet, the draft wasn't declined for lack of authority control, it was declined for lack of independent sources per WP:GNG; authority control can be added after publication, but let's first make sure this is publishable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:20, 3 April 2023 review of draft by 107.213.181.72


I am wondering if anything can be done to expedite the review of Bishop Lawrence G. Campbells' proposed page. He passed away last week, waiting for the page, and it would be a very fitting time to do it now while funeral arrangements are being conducted. Thanks!

107.213.181.72 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really any way to expedite this, as drafts are not reviewed in any order, and with 3,700+ drafts awaiting review, it can take quite a long time for any particular draft to be assessed. And while I appreciate that you and/or other parties might find the article's publication timely, Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, and we don't exist for external publicity etc. reasons.
Having said all of which, I've had a quick look at the draft, and if I had to make a quick decision I think I would have to decline it, which probably isn't what you wanted to hear. It has a number of issues, but the biggest one is that the majority of citations are to the source #1, which appears Campbell's autobiography. That makes it a non-independent primary source, which cannot be relied upon to verify anything beyond the most uncontentious facts, and certainly not to establish notability. Now, granted, I haven't done a thorough analysis of the other sources cited, and cannot conclusively say that they don't establish notability, but neither can I say the opposite. You might wish to review the WP:GNG notability guideline and ensure that you are citing sufficient sources to satisfy that. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:18, 3 April 2023 review of draft by TaiwanSoul


Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to request your help with improving my article submissions. I have submitted several articles in the past, but unfortunately, they have been rejected. As someone who is passionate about preserving local community history, I think it is important to have accurate and informative articles available to the public.

I understand that Wikipedia has high standards for the articles that are published on the site, and I would like to learn how to improve my writing so that my articles can meet those standards. I believe that my articles provide valuable information about our community's history and I want to make sure that they are accessible to others who may be interested in learning more.

If possible, could you please provide me with feedback on how I can improve my articles and what I need to do in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I am eager to learn and improve my writing, and I appreciate any guidance you can offer.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


TaiwanSoul (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TaiwanSoul have you read through the decline messages and followed all the links? If so, what is it that you specifically do not understand about what they say? Also, looking at the draft, it is promotional and filled with A LOT of indiscriminate trivial information. Wikipedia is not extension of the school's website My best suggestion is to trim is down to about 1000 words and cited with sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT (read this thoroughly). S0091 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091,
Thank you for taking the time to review my article draft. I appreciate your feedback and I understand that it needs to be trimmed down to about 1000 words and cited with sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, I am not sure which specific parts of my article are considered trivial and which sources are acceptable.
Could you please give me more specific guidance on what content to trim and what to keep? For example, I listed historic information to prove the document's legitimacy, but is all of it considered trivial or are there specific parts that can stay? Also, I included media coverages as proof of establishment, such as official mentions from Taiwan government official websites, Voice of America, and local newspapers. Are these sources acceptable?
I would really appreciate your help in clarifying this matter, as I am committed to preserving the history of my local community on Wikipedia.
Thank you for your time and consideration. TaiwanSoul (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 4

09:21:21, 4 April 2023 review of draft by Aeonbond


Aeonbond (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeonbond: there is no such draft. Do you mean Draft:Kotteri Komath Sri Bhagwatish Temple? In which case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:58, 4 April 2023 review of submission by 112.209.28.10

Hi i im a 112.209.28.10 my draft is rejected and add a ref 112.209.28.10 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. What do you wish to ask (about this rejected draft)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:42, 4 April 2023 review of submission by 103.164.238.18

103.164.238.18 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:06, 4 April 2023 review of submission by Jpmishra96

I have edited the article as per the guideline provided by User:Asilvering. Please check and let me know if I need to contribute more information to the article. Jpmishra96 (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpmishra96: without doing a detailed assessment (you get that when you submit this for review and a reviewer goes through it), there is quite a lot of unreferenced content, with several paragraphs without a single citation. You need to ensure that every material statement and anything potentially contentious is clearly supported by referencing. It's also not clear what makes this person notable, given that all the sources cited are primary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:13, 4 April 2023 review of draft by 2600:1001:B110:6978:38ED:DA23:33F1:B4E5


2600:1001:B110:6978:38ED:DA23:33F1:B4E5 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:58, 4 April 2023 review of submission by Bunkw. Bertus

Bunkw. Bertus (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bunkw. Bertus: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:33, 4 April 2023 review of submission by Warezalex911

Hi, I would like to request advice on how to make this page more suitable to be approved.

Warezalex911 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:15:50, 4 April 2023 review of draft by Paradiselost79

Recently saw musician and was impressed. He has done a lot of world traveling and wanted to be sure he was on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hammered_dulcimer_players.

Paradiselost79 (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1148218954"