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 Cyberspacecat (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 15 May 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Time-based_media). 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


May 9

00:32, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Interstatefive

I recently had my AFC submission of this draft declined, as it "was not supported by reliable sources". The article only has two sources, which may be why.

However, two sources is definitely enough for an article of the size it's currently in (51 words of readable prose). All non-obvious facts were cited with a decent source in the article, so I don't understand why the reviewer declined with this reason. Is it because of the length, or what? interstatefive  00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstatefive: you would have to ask the reviewer what, specifically, they weren't happy with, but I myself would have declined this based on the quality (rather than quantity) of the sources, which are basically just glorified maps, and don't IMO satisfy WP:GEOLAND. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstatefive I would also look at WP:NGEO, as it has guidance on this topic in particular. The sources provided only prove that it exists and does not support the need for a stand alone article. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing @Mcmatter I see what you mean. I was just about to bring up the two other articles of the same name in California and say how they've gotten off just fine (except for a single source tag on one article), but then I realized they had facts such as wildlife and their translations from another language in them. interstatefive  23:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:59, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Eocorbet

I have two questions. 1. I have redone three references as a test and saved them to my draft. Can you confirm that I have properly cited my three sources so that I can continue citing my sources the same way that I have previously done? 2. Does adding a unique birthdate help clarify disambiguation in the title? I would like to know if more information is needed, and if so, what information is needed to clear a disambiguation in the title? Eocorbet (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eocorbet:
  1. Yes, the first three sources are correctly cited. Carry on.
  2. Don't worry about disambiguating the title for now; if the draft is accepted, it will be moved to the correct title. (And FWIW, the current dab seems okay.)
I have, in turn, a query, which I've posted on your talk page; please respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:37, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Jacksonpanix

The information about this person was mostly taken from liner notes on the back of two vinyl LPs which I have in my possession, and are recorded on Discogs.com. I also have a copy of the book which I referenced in the content. I understand if Discogs and Abe Books are considered not citable sources, but I do not understand what my alternatives are for citing this content when there is so little available on the internet about this person. Are the other citations I included are acceptable? Should I include photographs of the backs of the LPs with the liner notes? I did quite a bit of research on this person. They existed, and they produced media works that are out there in the world. Their funeral was covered by news media for which I was able to discover and cite. I'm unclear on how to improve this listing to make it acceptable. Please advise. Jacksonpanix (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacksonpanix: there are a few things here.
AbeBooks is just a retailer, there's no point in citing it as a source. If you want to cite a book being sold via AbeBooks, then cite the book directly.
I suppose album cover/liner notes are 'publications', and as such you can again cite them as if they were, say, books. (And best not mention Discogs, as that is not an acceptable source.) However, they are clearly primary sources so do not contribute towards notability.
As for the other sources, the British Pathé clip doesn't seem to provide much that is useful. The Tulane one is an interview. Neither is useful for notability.
The Christian Century piece is a record review, but it does provide some coverage of the Pastor, and is IMO the best of the lot; however, it alone isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:22, 9 May 2023 review of draft by Stephaniedejager


Submission is taking a very long time which demotivates me a little by submitting or adjusting (new) articles. Can someone help me out please?

Stephaniedejager (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephaniedejager: we don't normally respond to fast-tracking requests, as there are over 4,000 drafts awaiting review. However, in this case it was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. Half the sources were close primary ones, and the rest didn't mention the subject; in other words, no evidence of notability, and also inadequate referencing (see WP:BLP for advice on articles on living people). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Stephaniedejager, you have chosen a topic that is highly controversial and abstruse. It is not an easy topic to evaluate for reviewers not immersed in the inside world of computer hacking. To me, as an outsider to hacking, your references look exceptionally weak, which also tends to make reviewers skeptical. Which three best independent, indisputably reliable sources devote significant coverage to this person? To be frank, I do not see the notability but again, I am not an expert in the topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Seyisage

I've been trying to publish a new draft for days now but this error keeps displaying "Error contacting the Parsoid/RESTBase server (HTTP 404): (no message)"

what could be the problem? Seyisage (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seyisage: I don't know, but doubt it's an AfC issue. Maybe ask eg. at WP:TECHPUMP? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
I reopened the previous draft on a different page and tried editing that. Copied my current changes and republished. That worked. Seyisage (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Agnidathkn

The reason behind rejecting my article was not sourcing statements like date of birth. How to give a source about the date of birth? Agnidathkn (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Agnidathkn: this draft hasn't been rejected, only declined (meaning you can resubmit once you've addressed the decline reasons).
You reference the DOB the same way as any other piece of information, by citing the published source that provides it. Where did you get the DOB from?
Needless to say, it's not just the DOB you need to reference, but everything: eg. the 'Early Life' section is completely unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:55, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Botota

Why was my article deleted? I think this article is important , please Botota (talk) 10:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Botota: nothing has been deleted, your draft was only declined; the reason for this was that there was no evidence of notability. And I should probably add that since the decline this draft has been made into a real mess, so it has no chance of being accepted in its current state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Constance52

Hi,

I would really appreciate any specific advice on how to improve my draft page, or whether there is a route for a more experienced editor to work on my page. Thanks! Constance Constance52 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Constance52: you need to cut down on the REFBOMBING – we don't need to see half a dozen sources verifying who the Director was more than a decade ago. We do, however, very much need to see sources that establish notability per WP:GNG, namely: significant coverage (of the Institute, not some indirectly related matters) in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's really helpful. C Constance52 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Da Piped M

Can pls find more sources? Da Piped M (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Da Piped M: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Michaelw3211

I do not understand why I cannot get this article published. I have all the rights of all the photos and I am being hired to create this article. Please help Michaelw3211 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelw3211: you cannot get it published for the reasons given in the decline notices, namely that the draft is virtually unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable.
Also, given that you have been hired to create this article, you must make a paid-editing disclosure, as explained in WP:PAID. This is a hard requirement; please do this as your very next edit. (You may also want to show your boss this: WP:BOSS. It explains why the job they've given you is wholly unreasonable.)
As for "having all the rights" in the images, it isn't enough for you to have the rights, they must be released into the public domain, and in any case we cannot simply take your say-so, there needs to be some evidence that this has been done. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have evidence through email, how do I submit it Michaelw3211 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaelw3211: don't worry about the images, they are irrelevant in what comes to getting this draft accepted (and hence, I will go and remove them, for now). You need to deal with the other issues highlighted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:10, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Khalidqtr1968

I have made the changes to the article today, But I'm not able to submit it for review, can you please check and help me out, review the final edited article. Khalidqtr1968 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Khalidqtr1968: you're unable to submit this draft, because it has been rejected, meaning it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:32, 9 May 2023 review of submission by Filmforme

Looking for additional opinions about the subject here. Is this draft acceptable the way it is, or is further coverage needed? Thanks. Filmforme (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context, I recommended that Filmforme come here for a second opinion. Here is the relevant discussion. Would appreciate if someone is willing to take a second look and provide some feedback. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Filmforme, I took a look and left a comment on the draft. I agree with the decline. S0091 (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 10

01:38, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Badabingbadaboong

What I need help is finding examples of a primary or independent, reliable, secondary source of information. The user Drimes really didnt go in depth on what an example of those sources are, he just shot down my draft. Could someone please go further in depth on the problems with my website, considering that there's literal proof that DC Comics announced that this is a crossover event? Badabingbadaboong (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badabingbadaboong, Drmies was clear in his assessment. Reliable sources are required. These need to have high quality editorial control and an established track record of accuracy and error correction. The sources need to be independent. That means that the coverage does not recapitulate press releases and is completely uninfluenced by any marketing, public relations or advertising activity by DC Comics. The coverage must be significant. It must devote a significant amount of detail to the topic. Brief, passing mentions are inadequate. So, which of your references meet that stringent three part standard? Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Bhubaneswar2009

can we use school website as a reference for staff details and student enrollment details in school articles? Bhubaneswar2009 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed are references to published reliable sources that are independent of this school that devote significant coverage to the school. Once notability has been indisputably established, then you can use the school's website for uncontroversial details, but that does nothing to establish or bolster notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:21, 10 May 2023 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Hello, could you please tell me why this article was removed? What do you find in the text, that you believe that feels like an advertisement? Most importantly, how can I improve it? עומר תשבי (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, עומר תשב. This passage is among many that are overtly promotional: In his Hebrew University lab, Reifen studied and developed a process to extract an almost-pure protein powder from chickpeas. According to Ram, chickpeas have “several unique attributes that make it a particularly successful source for meat, fish and dairy-product substitutes”.Reifen states that “As opposed to protein produced from other legumes, the chickpea isolate has a neutral flavor. What’s more, it is clear, has no aroma and can be processed into a wide variety of textures”. As opposed to Soy Protein, Reifen states that “Soy contains feminine sex hormones – phytoestrogens – in immense quantities… Another drawback…, is that soy causes allergies. Another major problem is that soybeans only grow in certain parts of the world because they require specific climatic conditions”. That simply regurgitates the promotional claims of people closely associated with the company. An acceptable Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what reliable sources entirely independent of the company say about the company. We should never include any evaluative praise referenced to company people. Otherwise, Wikipedia articles about companies would always say, "We build the best widgets!!" That is the function of the company's website, not of a neutrally written encyclopedia article about the company. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 10 May 2023 review of submission by BioTechDon1

Checking how to re-submit for approval. Received a decline in February and (hopefully!) rectified the article to reflect the reviewer's comments but worried this is being treated as permanently declined. Is there a way to re-submit? BioTechDon1 (talk) 07:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BioTechDon1: you have resubmitted the draft; it is awaiting a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - amazing! Thank you! BioTechDon1 (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:56, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Rhichsi

just want to write article for a bio graphy Rhichsi (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhichsi: this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and is pending deletion. Please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not LinkedIn or other social media for posting personal profiles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 10 May 2023 review of submission by Rhichsi

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request your kind assistance in publishing an article about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz on Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts, my previous attempts were rejected, and I believe with your guidance and expertise, we can successfully create a comprehensive and well-sourced article.

Muhammad Umar Mumtaz is a notable web developer and social media marketer based in Pakistan. His contributions in the field of web development and social media marketing have garnered significant attention and recognition. I strongly believe that an article on his professional achievements and contributions would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia's content.

To address the concerns raised in the previous rejection, I have taken the following steps to improve the article:

Notability: I have gathered additional reliable sources that establish Muhammad Umar Mumtaz's significance in the field. These sources include reputable publications, news outlets, and industry-specific websites, all of which provide comprehensive coverage of his work.

Sources: I have diligently compiled a list of reliable sources that support the information presented in the article. These sources include interviews, articles, and reports from credible sources known for their journalistic integrity and accuracy.

Neutral Tone: I have revised the article to ensure a neutral and unbiased tone throughout. The content now focuses on presenting factual information supported by reliable sources, avoiding any promotional or subjective language.

Structure: The article has been reorganized into distinct sections, such as Early Life, Career, and Personal Life, each providing well-developed and relevant information about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz's background, professional journey, and personal achievements.

Clear and Concise Writing: The revised article uses clear and concise language, making it accessible to a general audience. Technical terms and jargon have been appropriately explained or replaced with layman's terms where necessary.

I kindly request your guidance and support in reviewing the revised article and providing feedback on any further improvements or adjustments required to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. I am eager to work collaboratively with the Wikipedia community to ensure the article meets the highest standards of reliability, verifiability, and neutrality.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to contribute a well-crafted and informative article about Muhammad Umar Mumtaz to Wikipedia. 

Rhichsi (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly refer to my previous reply (and please don't start multiple threads on the same issue). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 10 May 2023 review of submission by 167.102.157.170

I know the citations for Parker Select , The Takeover, and Boss Battle Bonanza are youtube videos, but they're actual episodes of the episodes listed above. Is there any way I can still cite said episodes without linking the youtube videos? 

167.102.157.170 (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 10 May 2023 review of submission by ThumpLocal

I am asking for assistance as this is a historic business in a historic location with references including this recent article published by the Englewood Colorado Historic Preservation Society. You can see the article when scrolling down to the second page here http://www.historicenglewood.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Englewood-Newsletter-March-2023.pdf

Please help us as we have been trying for quite some time to get this article published.

Thank you in advance. ThumpLocal (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you need to properly declare your conflict of interest on your user page, the article has been created under a number of different titles now all deleted, this version has been declined and rejected, the topic isn't notable please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been declined twice then rejected. I second the rejection. Not notable. I don’t intend to be harsh, but it’s time to give up on this. It will never be accepted. Thank you. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 11

06:29, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Sandipan1997

I am submitting an article which is getting rejected each time for different reasons. Kindly help me Sandipan1997 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandipan1997: no, it has been declined three times, and finally rejected, always for the same reason, namely that there is no evidence the subject is notable.
And you have been asked to disclose your relationship with this subject (or any other that you're writing about) but haven't done so; please do it now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship with the company Sandipan1997 (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:47, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Separated By My Leader the unsourced draft has been rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Kostaru76

Dear Sir/Madam, I am trying to obtain assistance in order to execute the following recommendations of my Draft reviewer.

Comment: Please remove the external links from the body of the article, we don't use them. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: Also needs severe ref cleanup and a lead section. 🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 13:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC) Please can you highlight for me which exactly external links I have to remove from the body of the article, because there are external links to other Wikipedia pages and also to several other newspapers. The reviewer of my draft also states the following: “ This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.” I have used different sources, some of which I have found in the Google Scholar database. These are international journals and the Cambridge database, and other sources refer to Bulgarian newspapers and electronic tabloids. If they have been considered untrustful, I will remove them. I kindly ask if you can reply to me with some more detailed guidance that will help me improve my article to meet Wikipedia standards. Kind Regards Kostaru76 (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the external links that need to be removed [1], [2] and [3]. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 11 May 2023 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Does this article have a chance to be accepted to wiki? עומר תשבי (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: possibly, if the subject is deemed notable, and the article complies with the relevant policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30:56, 11 May 2023 review of draft by MAXOQ


I want this article to be published MAXOQ (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MAXOQ: please don't start multiple sections, thank you.
You haven't submitted the draft, so it hasn't been reviewed, and therefore cannot be published.
Not that there's much point in submitting it, as it wouldn't be accepted anyway, as it stands. In fact, it looks like it's pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:43:05, 11 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Reward3


Hello! While making final changes to my submission on Pike (John Pike Powers) Powers, the article was somehow deleted. Is there a way I can recover the draft? I would appreciate any help you can provide. This has been months of learning. 

Thank you!! Raye Ward


Reward3 (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Reward3: you already asked about this earlier. There's no record of deleted files in your edit count. And you seem to have only created one draft, Draft:Pike Powers, so it doesn't look like you could be mixing up different drafts.
That's assuming you've been editing while logged in, and only using your Reward3 account?-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, DoubleGrazing -- I found it! And yes, but I lost it again thru an inadvertent redirect that occurred when one device malfunctioned and I had to switch to another. But I believe I resubmitted, and once again, my heart-felt thanks for you patience and readiness to assist. Raye Ward Reward3 (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reward3 Your draft has two sections which are entirely unreferenced, whilst the topic is notable it would help if it was correctly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 11 May 2023 review of submission by 192.126.104.5

Hello! I made some revisions to this and hope it will be accepted. Can you verify that I properly submitted the edits? 192.126.104.5 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, there are few issues. Mainly, it is not clear really what the topic is. It starts out about a tweet (that quote way too long and may be a copyright violation) with an unreliable source, BoredPanda, which should not be used. Sources vary from talking about substack (not bars, nor a tweet), to the punk scene (not bars, not the tweet, and see Nazi punk). another about a video game (not a bar nor a tweet and also not a reliable source), then the last source again about the tweet, also from yet another unreliable source. There are no source that mentions "The Parable of the Nazi Bar". S0091 (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic appears to be an Internet meme, essentially. I think the best outcome is a merge to paradox of tolerance if an actual reliable source mentions it, because it essentially means the same thing. "Be afraid to stop bad people and they will take over". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Sanasante0

Would like to further understand why the article was deleted. I got two very different reasons between reviewers. I spent several hours assembling everything and the citations so this is definitely frustrating. The company has citations from Visa, MANY from Mastercard, Pymnts, and Forbes. They are also found across Crunchbase, Golden, Zoominfo, and Wikidata. Happy to make additional edits but to straight up have the article deleted is frustrating and makes me not want to bother trying to contribute in the future. Sanasante0 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanasante0, I am unable to see the deleted draft however it looks to have been deleted because it was overtly promotional in tone and copied verbatim from a press release. Both of which are a huge no no here on Wikipedia as per WP:WHATNOT. Of the possible sources you listed above none would be good places to find sources to support notability. Since this is your first thing you attempted to do on Wikipedia I would suggest perhaps you look at existing articles and make some minor fixes and changes to learn the ropes more. Article creation is the most difficult task to undertake here especially if you have not looked at or understand the policies on the site. You can read through WP:YFA to see a guide. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will work to correct the oversight on the PR and thank you for your constructive feedback as it is well received. In terms of Notability, the company in question is 1 of only 4 Payment Processors for Mastercard SEND in Canada and 1 of only 10 in the US Market. Direct connectors in the Payments world are very rare and it is a very big deal. Examples of Direct Processors are Stripe, Square, Paypal, and Oracle. Would this not be notable? I see smaller companies in the Payments world that are on Wikipedia. Sanasante0 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanasante0, has any reliable independent sources written about the company on their own accord? If not then an article will not be possible at this time. If so then the article needs to be based off those sources and in your own words. I wouldn't even start without a minimum of 3 reliable independent sources to build the article off. WP:ORGCRIT is our standard for establishing notability, not what the company does or how many others do it. It is quite strictly and heavily enforced, the reviewers are generally quite adept at picking out the press releases and routine business announcements. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you could entertain one last question from me.
Most of the independent sources that have written about the company are related to rewriting of PR syndications from Mastercard. There have been several industry publications around a handful of events. When companies like Mastercard or Visa publish news most of the major financial outlets either resyndicate or republish the content in their own words. Considering this is how news/events become mainstream would these not be sources? Sanasante0 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it looks like I answered my own question. I missed your link to WP:ORGCRIT. Reviewing it now Sanasante0 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so after fully reviewing WP:ORGCRIT - Could you please take a look at the following sources and let me know if these would be considered viable.
1. https://goodmenproject.com/the-good-life/money-the-good-life/open-banking-digital-transformation-in-fintech-canadas-aptpay-revolutionizes-the-global-payment-industry/
2. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/267435/20211102/the-president-of-aptpay-suganthan-vishnu-krisnarajah-made-headlines-with-the-news-on-partnering-with-nrt-technology.htm
3. https://thecanadian.news/aptpay-launches-first-digital-payments-gaming-client-in-canada/
4. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/aptpay-to-integrate-mastercard-send-into-its-platform-quick-facts-2020-08-19
5. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-08-19/mastercard-and-aptpay-speed-disbursements-across-multiple-industries Sanasante0 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanasante0 those are either press releases/announcements emanating from the company (I mean, Bloobmburg says "press-release" in the link so clearly useless per ORGCRIT) and/or not reliable sources. Also we will not go through a back-and-forth looking at various sources here. If you want to create a new draft to submit for review, you can but I honestly think you will be wasting your time and the time of volunteer editors, especially if the above is the best you could find after reading ORGCRIT. In addition, you were instructed on your talk page not edit further until you address WP:PAID which is a requirement. S0091 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:58, 11 May 2023 review of submission by Darioivweb

I think my article is well-written and informative. It is comprehensive and covers all aspects of the topic of roof scuppers. It is also factual and based on evidence. I do not see any reason why it would be considered contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

The only thing that I might change is the title of the article. The current title, "Roof Scupper," is a bit too general. I would suggest changing it to something like "Roof Scupper: A Drainage System for Flat Roofs." This would make it clear to readers what the article is about.

Plesae help me modify the title and help approve it Darioivweb (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Darioivweb: It reads exactly like it would if you were adverting roof scuppers for sale. It looks like a marketing pitch. That is why it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement platform - RichT|C|E-Mail 00:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 12

00:47, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Filmforme

Would like another opinion on this person for WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTOR. As a model, they have significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. As an actor, they only have RS mentions for significant roles in notable films. Filmforme (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmforme: are you suggesting that the reviewer declined the draft frivolously or erroneously? If so, I suggest you take this up with them.
Alternatively (and this would be my recommended course of action), take the review in the constructive spirit in which it was no doubt intended, and improve those aspects which were the reasons for declining; then resubmit, and you will get your second opinion (you can always ask the earlier reviewer to skip it, should it come up before them again).
Of course, if you're convinced that this article warrants publication, then you can move it into the main space past the AfC yourself, given that you have extended confirmed rights. NPP will then run the ruler over it and take whatever action they see fit (which may include sending it back to drafts, or moving for deletion). Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thanks for the information. I'm thinking about resubmitting and asking the previous reviewer to pass on it. I'm convinced it should be published, but most of the time, I incubate drafts until another user says it's fine. There are exceptions when a subject has more than enough coverage. In this case though, most of the coverage is not in English, and is from print that is decades old. Under that circumstance, I am unsure if AfC is the best path. – Filmforme (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme if you resubmit it, I suggest adding a note on the talk page with WP:THREE. If you do that, let me know and I will add a comment letting the next reviewer know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thanks, I have pinged you. Filmforme (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Well that didn’t work. All I want is another opinion, and the same user keeps declining it. They seem to have made up their mind that I have bias here. Filmforme (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme Based on the comments, @Lewolka has given it a fair assessment. Like DoubleGrazing said above, you can move it to main space and take your chances there. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmforme I left new comments here, I read all the sources you provided (for the record I happen to be fluent in French) and I really can't see how she could pass notability, I even searched for extra references as I often do that with potential articles but there's nothing there. It is looking a lot like a vanity page and I doubt it would last on the main space, I also find it odd that you started the article about her husband's one and only film. Lewolka (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:55, 12 May 2023 review of submission by LarryBright14

Hello, I am a Star Wars fan trying to update the page for Skeleton Crew by adding a separate page for actor Ravi Cabot-Conyers who stars in the upcoming series and has notable credits. Please advise on how to do this properly. Thank you.

I see others have tried to do this in the past for this acrtor would it help if I deleted their entry writing and just wrote my own based on internet articles about the child actor Ravi Cabot-Conyers, like that I see oof his co-star Ryan Kiera Armstrong or Jude Law and his Encanto, etc co-stars? LarryBright14 (talk) 01:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LarryBright14: this has been deleted twice, and the latest version declined no fewer than ten times over the past year. I see very little reason in even trying to revive this time sink.
But let's say you had suddenly discovered several really solid, hitherto-unknown sources which demonstrate WP:GNG notability beyond any doubt. Your best, indeed only, course of action would be to approach the reviewer who rejected this draft, and make your case to them. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing the reviewer who rejected the draft is blocked for being a sock. @LarryBright14 I took a look but agree with the reject. None of the sources meet WP:GNG as they do not provide in-depth coverage about him. I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. S0091 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, @S0091; I hadn't realised. Thanks for flagging that up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing you might consider installing the gadget in Preferences that displays blocked users with a strike through (its under the Appearance section, "Strike out usernames that have been blocked"). S0091 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabrielhussein503: you don't ask a question, but as pointed out earlier, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
Please don't start multiple threads on this. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
duplicate lettherebedarklight晚安 15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

14:56, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gabrielhussein503

London Gabrielhussein503 (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Msoutelo

So to you the migos page is more suitable and looks less like self-promotion. It is just another proof that some people are privileged just because they are signed to a major label. This is very regrettable not only for the artist that has dedicated their whole life to their craft but to the whole world. Ridiculous. Msoutelo (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@msoutelo: maybe don't write about yourself. lettherebedarklight晚安 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Msoutelo: I've no idea what you're on about. Did you have a question you wanted to ask, or are you just venting? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Iliochori2

I've just founded a Reliable sources for this article. Please when you have spare of time check if its. In the worst scenario let me know what type of sources you require in order to complete the article. Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:21, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gevorg Ghazaryan

Hello everyone. I am requesting assistance for the article mentioned above. I tried to reach out to the reviewer of the draft but didn't get an answer from them. I am asking you if you could give me proper feedback on the draft. The company is a watch and jewelry retailer in the United States and has been working for over 40 years. I included some sources again, even though they kept being deleted by an admin. If you will have time, please also have a look at the history of the article because some of the sources and material have been deleted by a moderator. Please reach out to me for any further questions. i can also try to find some more sources or book/publication mentions if necessary. Thank you! Gevorg Ghazaryan (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gevorg Ghazaryan: launching a website a decade before the web was invented is certainly impressive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I am sorry, it was a mistake:) I was lost in words after changing the article so much. Could you please have a look at it again? Thanks--Gevorg Ghazaryan (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:56, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Gemmaeng1

Tried to make an article about this celebrity photographer however had seen there was already one created but had been deleted. I requested it to be restored. Since it was originally denied the individual has become more notable (Named on the forbes 30 under 30 list) therefore have made edits accordingly also changed around some wording as it seemed very 'personal' Gemmaeng1 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting assistance for the article above as I would like to get it published and continue to update the subject as his career progresses. Thank you! Gemmaeng1 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gemmaeng1 Forbes "30 under 30" and other such lists do not contribute to notability. S0091 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, totally understand. I have included more work from the subject which I believe to be notable. Would you be able to review the article? Gemmaeng1 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look and since its last assessment, nothing has changed from a notability perspective. More "content" to the article is meaningless and honestly most of it needs to be stripped because most it is sourced to, at best, poor sources and some to unreliable sources. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Redredhen

I got declined and I am wondering why Redredhen (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page (User talk:Redredhen). S0091 (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redredhen, your draft is nowhere near to meeting the standards for an acceptable Wikipedia article. It is written in all bold for some unknown reason, mentions your birthday for no good reason, consistently misspells the simple word "planet", and is both poorly written and poorly referenced. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 12 May 2023 review of submission by Inthisdream

Hello,

I'm trying to revive a page about an artist that was removed a long time ago at the behest of the artist's team. This is a page that fully existed and was accepted by Wikipedia. Now I'm trying to revive it and wiki won't allow me to do so even though the artist has more notoriety now than he did when the original page was published years ago. I get a response saying it doesn't meet the notoriety requirements, but again, it already existed as a wiki page. Inthisdream (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Chad Price (singer-songwriter)
Hi @Inthisdream the fact it existed previously matters not as even then maybe it did not meet the notability guidelines. The logs do not indicate it ever passed a review. Either way, the draft has to show Price meets the notability guidelines for musicians and after three reviews by three different reviewers, the draft has failed the criteria which leads to the conclusion Price simply cannot meet the notability criteria, at least at this time. S0091 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 13

11:53, 13 May 2023 review of submission by 202.134.8.141

This article is the article of the central president of Bangladesh Islami Chhatra shibir. English articles have been submitted here, but the news source has been submitted with Bangla news at the national level of Bangladesh. Please activate it and make it open to public. 202.134.8.141 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft will be reviewed in due course, once a reviewer gets around to it. This can take several weeks or even longer, as we have c. 4,500 other drafts also awaiting review, and this draft was only submitted today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Gdude189

what should I do for my page to get accepted by wikipedia Gdude189 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gdude189: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 13 year old musician is simply not notable at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Lucasmauduit

Why is it refused? List them. Lucasmauduit (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasmauduit: the decline reason is given in the decline notice, in the small grey box inside the larger pink one. TL;DNR = the sources are insufficient to establish notability (and Instagram isn't an acceptable source anyway). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucasmauduit Virtually every reference you have used is from Grieco's own social media accounts. The notability criteria need multiple sources that are independent of the subject. So sources need to be about him, not by him. What you have used that isn't from his own accounts is very weak as it's just passing mentions of him. For example, this just says he was in Portugal, that's not really featuring in the magazine. Nthep (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I listed more sources if you want to see them.
http://evene.lefigaro.fr/celebre/biographie/tony-grieco-24534.php
https://www.thenewyorktoday.com/exclusive-feature-on-tony-grieco-a-multi-faceted-artist/
and many more. Lucasmauduit (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source [4] says only "Guitariste et chanteur français" which clearly doesn't help establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
at least this famous magazine says that he is an artist established on Spotify and apple music and he makes music. Lucasmauduit (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which confers any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, Le Figaro is a well-known French daily newspaper founded in 1826, during the reign of Charles X. Named after Figaro, the character of Beaumarchais, it is one of the oldest titles of the French press still published. Lucasmauduit (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of Le Figaro but the source says nothing about him except "Guitariste et chanteur français". We need significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Today describes itself as an E-Magazine that publishes user generated content around Business, Technology, Entertainment, Health, Sports & Lifestyle News. In other words, it is a pay for play clickbait site that is the opposite of a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:57, 13 May 2023 review of submission by 2601:18C:CD7F:7D30:692D:9D7F:D62A:7873

I'm wondering why my page was rejected. It says that it's "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," but I don't believe that's true. I do not work for this company and there is no advertising present in the page. I'd like to rebut this rejection. 2601:18C:CD7F:7D30:692D:9D7F:D62A:7873 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, it has now been deleted as blatant advertising. I also note previous versions of the draft have been deleted and users blocked due to the same issue. At this point, I think trying recreate it is a waste of time and it if it continues, there will be measures taken to prevent any recreation. S0091 (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Denniscabrams

I'm not sure why this article was published. Only the intro and background sections were complete. It's an article about a murder which doesn't describe the murder. I also planned to add a section about the trial and the impact (i.e. the resignations and firings and the explosion of the number of kids in foster care). I'd probably prefer that it be moved back into the draft space but maybe this is an acceptable level of completion for a Start-Class article? I'm not sure. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was submitted for review and accepted. You are free to carry on improving it of course. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Denniscabrams the draft was submitted by @JSwift49 so you will need to take it up with them. S0091 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniscabrams I had thought it was okay for a start, and I decided to publish because it hadn't been edited since December. I apologize if you didn't want me to. JSwift49 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JSwift49 if the editor is still active, it is probably best to check first before submitting. Also by you submitting drafts, especially if you have made no substantial improvements, it could be construed as you taking credit for drafts did not you had nothing to do with (i.e. getting the acceptance notices). S0091 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. That wasn't my intention at all, I just looked at it and thought it's better to publish than, say, have it auto-deleted. But in future I'll do that, thanks JSwift49 21:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can mark them with the {{promising draft}} template, which prevents them from being deleted generally for a year and adds them to Category:Promising draft articles. I do not think what you are doing is an issue at all for editors who are no longer active thus the draft is clearly abandoned but appears to meet notability. S0091 (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @JSwift49. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks JSwift49 21:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Denniscabrams: what am I missing? You started a draft, and it's been accepted for publication. Which bit are you unhappy about – your drafting, someone else submitting it for review, or the reviewer accepting it? If your point is that this should have remained in the draft space, I'm happy to move it back for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would've been best if it had remained in the draft space but I suppose that's what I get for being lazy and not participating in the discussion. At the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter. I guess this just lights a fire under me to actually finish it. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 13 May 2023 review of submission by Rayemufc1995

Why has my page been declined????

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Aartii_Naagpal&oldid=prev&diff=1154583321 Rayemufc1995 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is in the grey box inside the pink box namely... "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 people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 14

02:54, 14 May 2023 review of submission by Andro Keshelashvili

My submission has been declined twice and I don't think the reviewer has helped me in feedback a lot, I simply don't understand one of the problems the reviewer stated. So some outside assistance or help would be very appreciated. Andro Keshelashvili (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer in this situation, the main problem is that the article goes against the WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy requiring context for fictional elements. Which would be fine for his FANDOM article but not a Wikipedia page. Specifically, fictional characters/elements on Wikipedia need to pass general notability guideline which requires significant coverage from secondary sources. That means critics analyzing the character and why he is important. I can't really find anything that would qualify on Google. It might exist, but if it does, I can't find it.
On a smaller note, the Missions section simply goes against WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and would have to be removed entirely. There's no way to possibly tweak it so that it follows Wikipedia guidelines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As a random example of what "significant coverage" would look like for a fictional character, this is a full article talking about the depiction of a certain Fire Emblem character and their gender. It has a great deal of analysis and goes on at length about that specific character. It demonstrates they are important in a way that goes beyond simply being linked to the game they appear in. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:01, 14 May 2023 review of submission by 176.12.198.220

Hello, My submission has been rejected again after I tried to correct the draft according to the comments I received. This time though, no explanation or indication has been given as to why the publication is rejected besides "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" which makes little sense to me. If anyone could please enlighten me and indicate the next steps toward publishing my article I would be very grateful. Thank you very much in advance. 176.12.198.220 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the draft. It is overtly promotional and completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. One example is this entirely unreferenced gem of a sentence: Her perspective challenges conventional thinking on the factors behind Israel's success in the tech industry and offers insights on how innovators worldwide can foster the Israeli approach to innovation and entrepreneurship. That is corporate jargon and meaningless babble that is poorly written, and redundantly includes "innovators" and "innovation" in the same sentence. It is the opposite of neutrally written encyclopedic content. Frankly, it is drivel, as is much of the rest of the draft. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy, and it is mandatory and non-negotiable. Promotion, advertising, marketing and public relations are forbidden on Wikipedia. There are plenty of websites where promotional activities are welcomed. I suggest that you direct your efforts to other websites. Cullen328 (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 14 May 2023 review of submission by Mojahidur Rahman Sipon

Why was my article submission rejected, what was wrong? I wrote this article about Cyclone Mocha, here about all things Mojahidur Rahman Sipon (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mojahidur Rahman Sipon: did you read any of the comments the reviewer left? The draft is entirely unreferenced, and the topic already exists at Cyclone Mocha. (Also, you've placed this draft at the wrong title, being your username, but that's not why it was declined.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I am correcting the mistakes and republishing Mojahidur Rahman Sipon (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mojahidur Rahman Sipon Please don't re-publish, as pointed out the article already exists here Cyclone Mocha where you are free to edit and add content. Theroadislong (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 15

02:04, 15 May 2023 review of submission by 59.154.107.86

I am trying to add an artist but it always gets rejected, would love some feedback 59.154.107.86 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will need more information. Do you have a link to the rejected draft or can you provide the name of the artist?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:28, 15 May 2023 review of submission by Cyberspacecat

Hello. I am proposing a split from an existing article. The reviewer says the conservation of the medium deserves a page but not the medium itself. Saying time-based media does not deserve a page because that info is covered in conservation is like saying painting does not deserve a page because painting is described in painting conservation. I updated the conservation page because was very messy and too dense. Time-based media deserves its own page because media conservation only exists because time-based media came first. Cyberspacecat (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1154863901"