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 Jenyajc (talk | contribs) at 10:54, 4 September 2017 (→10:48:33, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Jenyajc). 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


August 29

00:15:05, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Treaty6Prod

I just need to know exactly what I need to add or change so this will be accepted..

Treaty6Prod (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Treaty6. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. I don't think acceptance is going to be merely a question of adding or changing things. The more basic issue is that your subject does not appear to have received in-depth coverage from reliable sources that are independent of it. And without a demonstration that such coverage exists, it is unlikely that an article about your web series will be accepted for publication. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:27:49, 29 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Dancemed

My article on Clinical Pilates has been declined as it "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Pilates." I am after some feedback in regards to getting it published. If I simply expand on the article will that be deemed as sufficient content for a stand alone article? The purpose of the article is to demonstrate the difference between "Pilates" and "Clinical Pilates" as they are both different. Any advice and/or feedback will be appreciated. Thanks! Dancemed (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dancemed (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more constructive instead to contribute to the existing article Pilates. Maproom (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:58, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Opendra Yadav

Opendra Yadav (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My articles on Kumhara Dharapani was declined as i was prior to it thinking it is alright. please give and idea why this all happened. I think the wiki isn't known about my articles on Kumhara Dharapani either they don't know what it is. It is a small collaborative town like market in Dhanushadham munucipality in dhanusha District of Nepal. and every things preferred and forwaded are accurate to my knowledge. Can anyone associated with these issue solving, provide me with riht things — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opendra Yadav (talk • contribs) 06:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opendra Yadav: Hello, Opendra. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the great delay in response. The reason your submission was declined was stated rather clearly by the reviewer -- you haven't supported your writings with sources that are reliable. But this is actually an understatement, because you haven't supported your writings with any sources at all. The entire submission reads as if it is your own personal impression of the town. This is not going to be enough to have the draft published on Wikipedia. Instead, you need to find information that has been published by reliable sources. You can start by looking for government sources (the most recent census will be a good place to start). Also, has the town been discussed (not just mentioned, but actually discussed) in the country's major newspapers? If so, that's great -- collect what is being said in those newspaper articles and add it to the draft. This will likely take a lot of effort on your part, but the draft will not be published without making this effort.

Also, your submission shows a complete lack of familiarity with even the most basic elements of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. I strongly urge you to work through our WP:Tutorial, which will provide you with the basic skills that you'll need to craft an acceptable article. You might also want to read WP:Your first article for more tips and suggestions.

I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:40, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Vale rvrsnsts


Hello there. This is my first wiki page ever. I'm not sure about the refrences...the band has like 90k likes on facebook, played concerts all over europe and really deserve this wiki page. But all the infos I could find are listed in the references section. I wanted to create this wiki page, so everyone as easy access to all of these informations! I hope, it's worth publishing.

Vale rvrsnsts (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined for the reasons given on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:46:41, 29 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Eastcoasted

Why was this declined? Howell is a long established broadcaster and there are even references to him in CNN International Wikipedia pages. No explanation was given for the decline. If declined for a technical reason, please so state so a page can be created.

Eastcoasted (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eastcoasted. The draft was declined twice in 2016 for the reasons stated on User talk:Eastcoasted. It was deleted in November 2016 as an abandoned draft, one that no one had edited for six months. If you intend to continue improving it, you may ask at WP:REFUND/G13 for it to be restored.
However, having been in one's profession a long time, being good at one's job, or being in the public eye are not sufficient reasons for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Unless and until the draft cites significant coverage of Howell in multiple, independent, reliable sources, it will not be accepted for publication. You may find it useful to study some of Wikipedia's best writing about journalists: Ike Altgens, Louise Bryant, Margaret Fuller, and Peter Jennings. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:49:24, 29 August 2017 review of submission by InternationalSupporter3

I have recently attempted to create a page for the Sparta Rotterdam footballer Ragnar Ache. The request has been declined and I would ike to know why. InternationalSupporter3 (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi InternationalSupporter3. Thank you for your contribution. All content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The usual way to do this is to attribute material to reliable sources by using inline citations. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:10, 29 August 2017 review of draft by Ttufftruckparts


Ttufftruckparts (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi we just submitted our first article and do not see any of our reference links. We copied and pasted our article from a word document that has all our words that have links. Why are the links not showing up now and what do we do. No one answers your chat? Thank you

NOTE: Draft has been deleted and the user has been blocked. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:48, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Heritagemonster

Hi all at Sulfurboy's suggestion I'm asking for help with resubmitting my article. I know it is a bit thin to say the least and need more refs. I might struggle with the citations and references but the reference is, I thought, independent and verifiable but I didn't put in the ISBN number so may benefit from that? Henry Syer Cuming is referenced in another Wikipedia page and he has published in the 19th century under British Archaeological Society. Thanks for your patience in advance, possibly I pushed the submit button too early and sent a more stub like entry than intended! Advice on next step much appreciated. Heritagemonster 29 Aug 2017 16.33 UK

Heritagemonster (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heritagemonster. Your self-evaluation of User:Heritagemonster/sandbox is spot on. Citing a single reference is weak in terms of demonstrating notability. Novice editors are usually advised to cite at least three independent, reliable sources. The cited source is a book, but it's only 24 pages, and the single citation doesn't specify which page number(s) the material came from. It's much more convincing if there's at least one inline citation per paragraph, and they tell the reader that this bit came from page 12, this bit from pages 2-3, and so on. You can use the "Find sources" links within the pink box on the draft to search for additional reliable sources. This article in an academic journal might be useful.
I've left a welcome package of links on your talk page. Another useful one is Wikipedia:Your first article. Before pushing submit again, browse those links to see how to improve the draft. It may require a bit more work, but it looks like the topic will be a nice addition to Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:03:52, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Osprey57

If I understand correctly, the entry about Jennifer Sinor was declined because there are not enough outside sources, such as more published reviews of her work. How many published reviews must an author have in order to be considered important enough to have a Wikipedia entry? Must all references have online links? What about reviews that are in printed works that are not currently available online -- can they be listed as references even though one would have to go to a library to find the publication since it is not online? It looks to me that Sinor has only a couple fewer links to reviews than some other up-and-coming authors who have Wiki entries. Her latest book has one more review that can be added to this post and one of her recent essays won runner-up in a contest held by the Creative Nonfiction Foundation but the latter is not posted online and can be only be referenced by giving the magazine issue. Would that count? Also, some of her earlier works have been recognized but that info is not online and again only the journal issue can be given. Would any of this count? Thank you very much for your help!

Osprey57 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Osprey57. You are correct about the reason the first draft was declined. There is no fixed number of independent reliable sources that is sufficient. The draft cites 1–2. The alumni blurb, like bios on publisher sites, is assumed not to be independent. The UPR interview contains some analysis by the interviewer, but a lot of the 60 minutes is Sinor talking about Sinor. Novice editors are usually advised to cite at least three independent reliable sources. If you can cite a few more than that, it may improve the draft's chances, but cite a very large number, and reviewers may become reluctant to put in the effort to review the draft. Quality matters more than quantity. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources to get an idea of the hierarchy. Reviews in scholarly journals are best. Reviews by professional critics in reputable outlets like The New York Times or The Washington Post are next best. Off-line sources are fine.
Wikipedia discourages non-linear biographies. Covering works in reverse chronological order is more CV-style than encyclopedia article style. I recommend using citation templates to format the references and the list of works. Some have been done as examples for you. Be sure all opinion is clearly attributed rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice. Pay attention to the Manual of Style. Try to reduce the number of entries in the external links section. Ask of each: does this add something that isn't in the sources already cited? If no, remove it. If yes, can it be turned into a reference? --Worldbruce (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:08, 29 August 2017 review of submission by Cristinaclcardoso

I've been working on this article for a long time now, and I think I've changed everything that was "wrong" with it. I would like to please ask for a review because I would love if this article could be published soon. Thank you.

Hi Cristinaclcardoso. The draft is in the pool to be reviewed. Based on the current backlog, you can expect a review within 4-5 weeks. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you!

August 30

00:48:21, 30 August 2017 review of submission by MG-Lon


Hello , i'm sorry if Offended you. However Iam simply trying to ge the article on wikipedia, we thought met the criteria. I thought it was more so my referencing. We shall try again at later date when we have more credible sources as I have been quoted a few times.

Thanks for your time.

@MG-Lon: Hello, MG. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I'm not sure that I see an actual question here but, if there is one, feel free to let us know. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:45, 30 August 2017 review of submission by 68.175.131.44

68.175.131.44 (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Please how can someone assist to select reference on the Subject Draft Ejembi John Onah that just fits independent source?[reply]

Hello, IP address. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Our apologies for the delay in response. I assume you are asking about Draft:Ejembi John Onah. If so, the most recent reviewer was quite clear about their suggestion -- identify three sources that you think demonstrate encyclopedic notability and ask us whether we agree that they do make that demonstration. Are you now asking us to do that for you? But the whole point of the suggestion is that you -- the person most familiar with the subject -- identify the sources. If I've misunderstood your question, please let us know. And if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I just saw that you posted again below. Feel free to respond under either posting. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:31:59, 30 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Vlaurentius

Dear Sirs, I've tried to follow the guidelines and I've added several links from primary sources. However I still see the same critics. Please tell me what I am still doing wrong. Thank you very much in advance

VL 10:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Maurits Roland Falkenreck (v. Falken-Reck) is strangely named. What is the "v. Falken-Reck"? A variant of his name? Or a title, starting "van"?
It is written as one large paragraph, making it unreadable.
The references are not cited correctly. Please read Referencing for beginners.
It contains promotional (and largely meaningless) language such as "he learned from a young age how to take his concepts/ideas to the next level". Maproom (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:15, 30 August 2017 review of submission by 68.175.131.44

Based on the comments on talk forum on the subject by Jmcgnh yesterday advising that the subject select 3 best references that can satisfy notability, the subject has 3 such references with citations in peer review journal totaling, 131, 103 and 7 counting totalling 241 and counting, can that be ok for notability? Further other work the subject is doing includes pioneering nano activities in 189 countries in association with global leaders of the field in academic, policy makers and private sector 68.175.131.44 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you would log in with your username.
First you need to tell me the theory you are using to support notability under WP:NPROF.
Second, using bare citation counts is perhaps supportive but not all by itself sufficient to establish notability.
Third, we have seen the assertion in the article about all the work Onah has done and the organizations he has worked with, but some note of that has to have been taken by a publication that is not directly associated with Onah. It's a citation to that publication that can be used to help establish notability. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

10:18:55, 31 August 2017 review of submission by Aghnn123

Hi, My submission was declined for this reason: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I did use footnotes to cite my sources, so I'm a bit confused - could someone explain what I did wrong? Thank you! :-)

Aghnn123 (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Large chunks of the article do not have inline citations. In fact, there isn't an inline citation until four paragraphs into the article. For living people especially, you need to have inline citations for any claims made in the article, if they cannot be properly cited then they need to be removed. Sulfurboy (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:49:40, 31 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Regulussimo

I am unable to connect the quote number in the main text and the references I cited in the box references. Finally, I am requesting assistance in order to create the page. --Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)--Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Regulussimo (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regulussimo. The mechanics of inline citations are counterintuitive. Don't place the references in the references section, but mix them in with the text, within <ref></ref> tags. I've done the first one for you as an example. See Help:Referencing for beginners for more information. A further improvement would be to supply more information than bare urls. Citation templates are good for that. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:17, 31 August 2017 review of submission by Dibcap17

Hello. I am requesting assistance because my article draft has been rejected. I'm listing multiple outside sources and links to other Wikipedia articles. The content is completely verifiable through reputable news sources. Please help provide feedback as to what I can more specifically to get this article published. Thank you. Dibcap17 (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dibcap17. It's good that the content is verifiable. That's a fundamental requirement for all content on Wikipedia. Being verifiable is not, however, sufficient justification for a stand alone article. The draft was declined because it failed to show that IngramSpark is notable.
Of the sources cited, comstocksmag, irishtimes, and libraryjournal make only brief mentions of the company. The Independent Publishing Magazine appears to be a trade journal. Trade journals are often discounted by reviewers for notability because of their limited circulation and an often too-cozy relationship with the companies and industries they cover. That leaves publishersweekly as the only source of any depth. The AP report in usnews, with a sentence about the company, is a distant second. That isn't enough attention from the world at large to demonstrate that the company is notable and has had a significant or demonstrable effect on anything.
IngramSpark is part of Ingram Content Group, which is part of Ingram Industries, yes? I suggest you use the information you've gathered to expand the article on the parent company instead of attempting to create an article on the subsidiary. Emphasize the company's history, readers can visit their website to find out about their specific self-publishing services. You may then create a redirect from the name IngramSpark to the article on the parent company so that readers seeking what little there is to say about the company can easily find that information. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

06:49:49, 1 September 2017 review of submission by XL2000


Dear Wiki helpers,

I wrote an article about Pillar Project, a new Blockchain project which (IMHO) will change the world. Even though the project is in its early stages, I would think it would deserve a place on Wikipedia. My article was rejected (and deleted) because it was promotional. Promotion is not my goal, and Pillar Project has nothing to gain or no need for promotion, but I understand how the terms apply.

Right now, I am not sure if my article can be rewritten enough to make it accepted. I think it is factual about the current state of the project. I am therefore kinda lost on what I should change, and if the article is in some for acceptable at all. Can someone help me indicate the promotional problems, and indicate if rewriting will help at all?

Many thanks for your help!

XL2000 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XL2000. The draft has been deleted a third time for being unambiguous advertising or promotion, so I can't evaluate its contents. "In its early stages" is almost synonymous with "not notable". Things in their early stages normally have not been covered extensively by indepedent reliable sources over a period of time, and thus do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Wikipedia is not for "getting the word out" about anything, it only reflects what the world at large has already taken significant notice of. I recommend that you set the topic aside until it has changed the world. Meanwhile there are millions of other ways to improve Wikipedia, check out Wikipedia:Community portal for ways you can help. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:20, 1 September 2017 review of submission by Mikkedn

Hello, I just submitted an article named "Bice Piacentini", it's actually a translation from an italian page with the same name. It's about an italian author which is very little known, there are no references to her online, except for a couple of pages. Therefore I cannot quote anything online that proves her existence, how can I have my article published if there is no other reference of her online? Mikkedn (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mikkedn. There is no need for references to be online, but all content must be verifiable in published reliable sources. To cite an offline source, I recommend using an inline citation with a citation template such as this:
<ref>{{cite book |last=Rossi |first=Mario |year=1956 |title=Obscure book where you found the information |language=it |location=Milan |publisher=Skira |pages=114-115 |oclc=fill in oclc from worldcat.org}}</ref>
See Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Template:Cite book/doc for more information. There are other templates in the same family for citing academic journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

06:05:18, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Don.carlos.ch

Made 9 reliable references, e.g. a TV station's report (TV Nova, Czechia), print magazines (Playboy, VOLO), online magazine (Artmageddon) and official independent databases. Why is this not good enough?

OK, we're trying to establish notability. For that, we need some in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Which three of the current references would you consider the best? If you've read WP:NACTOR, how do you think your sources align with those guidelines? — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 06:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:04, 2 September 2017 review of submission by RashadFarroq


RashadFarroq (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please grant us access to be allowed to have a Wikipedia page for Rashad Farooq

Hello, Rashad. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Before posting here, I declined your submission for the reasons stated on the draft itself. You will really need to demonstrate that you have received significant coverage from reliable sources before your autobiography will be accepted for publication here. And a single two-minute clip on a local television station is not going to be sufficient. On a different matter, writing autobiographies is extremely discouraged here on Wikipedia. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read WP:AUTO, which will explain some of our concerns about autobiographies. I hope this response has been helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:57, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Karlweber-kw

What should I improve specifically in the article? Karlweber-kw (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karl. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Later today, I'll leave some comments on your draft (and will notify you when I do that). NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:00, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Giznej

As I mentioned earlier, I do not agree. There are many good reasons to have two different articles on "mathematical optimization" and the subclass "linear programming". By the same reasons there should be also an article on "Multi-objective Optimization" and also an article on "Multi-objective linear programming".

Hi Giznej. I have requested comment on the draft at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Draft:Multi-objective linear programming. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:26, 2 September 2017 review of submission by Okc97

I submitted this article for review almost a month ago now. When will the review be finally finished? I would like the page to be published and made available to the public as soon as possible please as I have created the page for someone who is very old and sick, and will pass away soon. It would be greatly appreciated if the review of this page could be expedited. Thank you.


Okc97 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Okc. Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. We've been very backlogged here this summer and it probably would have taken another week or so for your submission to work itself to the front of the queue. But I took a quick look at it and saw that there wasn't much need for waiting that extra week or so. I've declined to accept the submission for the reasons that I've stated on the draft itself. I recognize that this is not the result you were hoping for and, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

09:05:05, 3 September 2017 review of submission by Rane2030

I have started to write an article about an artist, now I have finished the article and submitted it for review. Perhaps, I cannot find the article I registered in the Wikipedia - when I insert name of the article in Wikipedia search field to search, it has no article with that name! Please help to clarify this, does it mean the title entered in the Wikipedia has got deleted? If so how should I continue with my work (I have put a lot of energy to prepare the article - now in Sandbox for review) Please help me Thank you rane2030 Rane2030 (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rane2030: I've moved your submission to Draft:Wickrama Bogoda, which is the preferred location for articles that have been submitted for review. While you wait for a review, however, you need to correct your referencing in the submission. Right now, you have a large list of external links, some of which I presume you meant to be sources. That's not an acceptable way to supply references for a biography. You might want to look at Help:Referencing for beginners for instructions on how to go about putting in proper references so your article has a chance of being accepted when reviewed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 09:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I realize that I didn't address part of your question. Because the article name was still "sandbox", you would not have been able to find it using the subject's name. And, until it is accepted into "mainspace", it should not be showing up in external searches, such as Google. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:29, 3 September 2017 review of draft by Grindcomber


Grindcomber (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

08:22:58, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Collins Mtika


Please could you advise if I have correctly submitted the article "Ian Cockerill" for creation review. I first submitted it on 31 July 2017, then by mistake I re-submitted it on 19 August 2017. The line below the draft article now shows two submission dates. Did the second submission for review cancel out the first submission? Thank you for your assistance Collins M Mtika


Collins Mtika (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

10:48:33, 4 September 2017 review of submission by Jenyajc


Hey guys,

I'm trying to get this article reviewed for about half a year now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Luminar As you can see from the edits history, I've updated it several times according to the reviewer's notes, each time adding necessary and removing unnecessary parts. But after the last edits, where I was asked to "add more reviews", now it has been marked for "speedy deletion" for promotional tone, as I understand. I've almost given up in my efforts to make it meet Wiki criteria, since the last suggestion from reviewer seems to be in conflict with "speedy deletion" criteria.

Please help me to understand how I need to edit it so it is published.

Thanks

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=798884251"