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 Sampf (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 4 December 2018. 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


November 28

03:53:32, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Mubeen Nizam naik

Mubeen Nizam naik (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sir/Madam,

please if you can guide me considering the reference, as the reference is already provided from Wikipedia sources and which has sub-reference considering the therapy.

thanks & Regards

Hi Mubeen Nizam naik, Greetings. I believe you were referring to Draft:MubinoTherapy. Pls note (1) Wikipedia can NOT be the source, so pls remove it from the draft. (2) pls read referencing for beginners for inline citation (source/referring) info and instruction. (3) Pls read WP:LINK for inter Wikipedia linking (4) pls read WP:Your First Article to familiar yourself on how to write an article in Wikipedia. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:58:18, 28 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ravikantsurlakar

Why my article was declined?


Ravikantsurlakar (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravikantsurlakar. The draft was rejected because the topic does not clear the bar of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


05:39:42, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

Accepted. Nice page needs copyediting but good topic. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir! I am a newly born Wikipedian who needs a lot of hard work to make good contributions. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Please give your opinionsFarooqahmadbhat (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:33:15, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Sigute from InkAgency

The submission of my added information on Modus Energy was declined due to the references not showing significant coverage regarding the subject. However, the references indeed do have relevant information about the topic. The articles that were added to the reference list are from the most influential media, providing reliable and explicit information about the company. I was wondering, if the submission was declined because the references were mostly in Lithuanian and not in English? I was told in a live chat that it is allowed to have the majority of references in a different language.

Sigute from InkAgency (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sigute from InkAgency#Paid editing --Worldbruce (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:45:01, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Thangam123


Thangam123 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:56, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Cruiser1

This article was rejected with the simple message "this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", without any further explanation. However, I do not believe that assessment is correct. This event was covered in various local, national, and international reliable secondary sources, so should meet WP:GNG. It also resulted in continued coverage and has had long term effects beyond the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS shouldn't apply.

This page follows WP:SINGLEEVENT which says that "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." This page isn't targeting the individual person (who wouldn't otherwise be notable) but rather the event, which is clearly significant. Compare this page to the various other pages in Category:Bullying_and_suicide which are also titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and use {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}. Compare also to another filmed suicide page, Suicide of Kevin Whitrick, which has been deemed notable enough to easily survive deletion proposal. Not that unfortunate events like this should be considered a contest of course, but Katelyn Davis' case should be considered at least as notable as all these other pages, in that it had much more national and international coverage, her death was actually recorded on video and was seen by literally millions of people (often unwittingly) during its weeks on Facebook, and in the case's later ramifications on modifying policy on Facebook and other social media platforms.

K.e.coffman did the most recent review, and said on his talk page that I could ask for a second opinion here. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


10:57:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Julia Kleinham


Julia Kleinham (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikipedia,

I need help getting my article approved. I have to meet a deadline to have it published. I will attach a link here to the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Trade_of_Bananas_in_India

Thank you, Julia

11:46:41, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Neha Maria Thomas


Hi, Can you help me how to improve the article submission Draft:Xclusive Yachts? I have no paid interest in the subject - i believe it being rdeclined due to this reason? Can you advise the way forward? Thank you


Neha Thomas (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.--Worldbruce (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:33, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Jignesh Gupta

Please give your opinions Jignesh Gupta (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


n.b. Editor has requested the deletion of her draft and it has been G7 speedy deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:35:04, 28 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Charitableyouth


15:35:04, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Charitableyouth

I am new to Wikipedia. And I have been trying to create article for inclusion in Wikipaedia. I need the assistance of an experience person to help out. This is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kabiru_Adeniyi_Kulukulu#References Charitableyouth (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:37:47, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Kpetrovay


Kpetrovay (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission [Draft:Béla_Harkányi] rejected by a schoolboy for "reading like an advertisement".

Perhaps you should also tell, an advertisement for what? A guy who died 80+ years ago??

I've accepted the well written page and asked User:Vincent60030 to explain his thinking. I hope he just clicked the wrong button by accident. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:14:41, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Savearainbow

I submitted this and got a lot of help from the first editor. The second editor brought up points that didn't exist, as noted below. Also, he accused me of conflict of interest because I was in contact with the band! It's necessary for me to contact the group so I can ask questions and get the right information!


Here is a transcript of my communication on the "talk" page:

Thanks for the review. I'm confused - the rejection said: This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

There WAS a range of independent, reliable, published sources. For example, they were on the front cover of Blues In Britain and had an accompanying article, had numerous reviews over the years in magazines and newspapers from all over the world, and toured all over the UK and Europe. I provided references. There are plenty of other reviews, but unfortunately many are not web accessible without a subscription. I don't understand how you can say what you did about it being "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - I didn't write those articles!
Rather than being "an advertisement", which would have used superlatives to describe the band, I just stuck to their history and accomplishments. No, they aren't U2 or Led Zeppelin. But they are a recognized Modern Blues band that has gotten steady, significant airplay on blues stations all over the world and have a reasonably large following. If they don't meet the required level of success, despite the luminaries who have recorded the albums, that's one thing. But to say I didn't provide a neutral point of view, or didn't provide independent, reliable, published sources - I must be missing something in what's required.
I would appreciate help in getting this to pass muster. Thanks again for your time and voluntary work. Savearainbow (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: please see User_talk:Savearainbow#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So as a fan who knows the band, I can't submit the article? Thanks for the quick response. Savearainbow (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Savearainbow: It's still unclear whether you have a connection to the band or not (WP:COI), since you did not directly answer my question. In any case, you are welcome to ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Please link this discussion if you do. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm not directly connected to the band other than being a fan. Nowhere in your comments or responses did I see an actual question. Honestly, I feel like we're having two different conversations. You gave critiques that did not apply to my article. You're saying I didn't answer a non-existing question. I already submitted this article (a different editor reviewed it and gave very helpful suggestions) and this concept of COI never came up. I understand you're a volunteer editor and are doing the best you can, but this is quite frustrating.


So at this point I'm reaching out to you. I don't know what K.e.coffman is talking about anymore. Maybe he/she doesn't have experience with musical group submissions? Or maybe I'm doing something wrong but not getting the guidance I'm requesting? The difference between the first editor and K.e.coffman is so marked that, had coffman been the first editor, I would have given up!

Thanks for your help.

Savearainbow (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:04, 28 November 2018 review of submission by GrayBirdGrayBackground


Hello,

I would like to request a re-review on my submission. My article on the active satellite DAVE (CP-7) was rejected twice despite having several external sources and the actual satellite referenced being in orbit. By comparison, several spacecraft with what I believe to be equal or lesser quality sources have been published on Wikipedia (rightfully so): An example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELFIN (a satellite that launched with DAVE and had its article published prior to launch).

I think that the subject matter is notable since the spacecraft is active in orbit and not just a conceptual design. In addition, the reviewer who twice rejected the article has been banned from Wikipedia and did not seem to have a background in spacecraft.

For these reasons, I am requesting a re-review of the article.

Thank you. GrayBirdGrayBackground (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GrayBirdGrayBackground checkY Accepted. Reverted Frayae's rejection per WP:BANREVERT and it's good enough for me. ProgrammingGeek talktome 18:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


18:52:06, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

Please give your opinions... If anything is needed to improve, please let me know. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:08, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Danisetyanto


Danisetyanto (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


19:13:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by JamesJ1992

We have gotten our article denied twice so I have restructured the article using new references. What else do we need to do in order to make the page strong enough to publish? JamesJ1992 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesJ1992: - hello, unfortunately Gavin Clarkson fails the political notability requirements - these are some of the strictest in wikipedia. The subject has not won either of the main elections he has participated in, and does not appear to satisfy notability in a different method. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:25:29, 28 November 2018 review of submission by Chadthebeasthardy


Chadthebeasthardy (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I fixed it.

No, you didn't. It's still an autobiography that does not have any reliable sources or any claim of notability. ProgrammingGeek talktome 21:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:04:05, 28 November 2018 review of draft by 72.15.52.170


I am unclear as to why none of the sources are considered "significant coverage", since one of the articles in Playback Magazine (essentially the Canadian Variety Magazine) specifically makes mention of Highball.TV as the subject of the article, the launch of which is the reason for the article itself. Is it that the national industry coverage that Playback covers is Canadian? Or is the Playback article not long/detailed enough? This is the average length of a breaking news story for this magazine.

72.15.52.170 (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 72.15.52.170. The decline notice lists five properties that sources must have, of which "significant coverage" is only one. A trouble with Playback (and Northernstars.ca) is a lack of another of the five properties, independence. Both are regurgitations of a press release by Highball, so not independent of it. The government of Canada source lacks significant coverage. The two reviews and the radio interview don't mention Highball. And the Highball website of course is not independent of Highball. It may be unrealistic of you to expect that a service launched last month would have garnered the independent, in-depth coverage over time that is required to demonstrate suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Set the topic aside for a few years and reexamine it then. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:59:33, 28 November 2018 review of draft by Amatorium


I've edited this article several times now. The text has references, it is not a copy of another one and yet it is still not approved. There is a page on this article on the original Bulgarian Wiki, which is similar and is official and yet this is constantly rejected. I don't understand if 4 different references from various sources confirming the information of the article are not enough, I don't know what is.

Amatorium (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:56, 2 December 2018 review draft by MatthewGamer

Why did my articles not give good information, they were private technology's information. I mean why would you leave my articles (AMKTech Beta 1, AMKTech Beta 2, AMKTech Versions) brought through everybody else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTheGreatestGamer (talk • contribs) 08:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

01:33:02, 29 November 2018 review of draft by 203.58.6.6


Hi, my draft keeps getting rejected. It says that the subject already exists with a link to Cupid Media, however, Cupid Media is a parent company to 36 other websites, each of the 36 sites has it's own unique history and should have it's own page. I was trying to do a separate page for Filipino Cupid.

203.58.6.6 (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exists. Your topic is just a product of Cupid Media and in fact all the Cupid sites look pretty much the same. The geographic distinctions are just marketing. The daughter sites have trival history not at all seperate from the company. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


03:20:46, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

I Repeat: Please give your opinions... If anything is needed to improve, please let me know. Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:03:51, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Ukecka

Hello, Could you please let me know which sources are considered to be reliable as I have linked the article to local French Newspaper - Nice Matin. What else do I need to do in order to make the article strong enough to publish?


Ukecka (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

07:11:36, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Rahulpb

Rahulpb (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am unable to submit the below article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rahulpb

Please help on how to complete the submission.

Hi Rahulpb. There is now, in a box at the top of the draft, a blue button that, you may click to submit the draft for review. Before you do that you may to study Wikipedia:Your first article and especially Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and make corrections accordingly. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:33, 29 November 2018 review of submission by Malek404


Malek404 (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Malek404: - there are a few legitimate grounds on which your article was declined (even discounting the most recent from a now blocked editor). As a living person, the draft must provide inline references for any potentially controversial fact. As the draft currently stands, there aren't any inline citations after the first paragraph of the "Early Life" section.
Additionally, your references don't meet the "Significant Coverage, Reliable, Independent" triple need - there are some useful links to it in the decline templates in the draft. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:23:47, 29 November 2018 review of submission by 2001:648:2E80:4401:4DDE:8E6D:E563:3122


2001:648:2E80:4401:4DDE:8E6D:E563:3122 (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:42, 29 November 2018 review of draft by Farooqahmadbhat

They are saying, If you need extra help, please ask us a question. This is third time I am adding my request (for opinions) here.. Previous 2 requests were ignored Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farooqahmadbhat, Is there anything specifically you're confused about? ProgrammingGeek talktome 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:32, 29 November 2018 review of draft by Dfarino


I have tried to submit my bio page titled Rob Gershon several times. I referenced as much as I possibly could and it is still being rejected. What more can I do to publish this page?

Dfarino (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfarino: - hi there. There are two critical facets that will lead to your article being declined until resolved.
One is the general absence of sufficent sourcing - sources must be in-depth, reliable and independent secondary sources. This means that the website of the company he works for is not suitable for proving notability (though it can support non-controversial facts in the article). Newspapers (online or otherwise), journals, books etc are good potential sources.
Once you have found some good sources, as a living person, where a higher level of reliability is required, needs inline sources to back up each use of any fact that isn't completely non-controversial. Have a look at referencing for beginners and Inline citations to learn how to do this. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:20, 29 November 2018 review of submission by DMarketer18


DMarketer18 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission was rejected. Although the reviewer did not specify why it was rejected, I would have rejected it as marketing, and your user name implies that you are here to do marketing, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Read the conflict of interest policy and make any required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:32, 29 November 2018 review of submission by 72.80.75.70

Hello, I would like to know why my submission was declined. The page is not being used for promotion and is written with no bias. Help! 72.80.75.70 (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment subject does not appear WP:N notable. It is extra hard to get businesspeople past the notability guideline as many wikipedia editors have a bias against businesspeople (consider it spam/promotion) and for sports people and entertainment people, even though they are also business people marketing themselves as a product. Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

01:33:19, 30 November 2018 review of draft by Casting Nasturtiums


Hi there,

Your help would be enormously appreciated. I'm trying to create a page for Andrew Anastasios, who's a scriptwriter who has been, and continues to be, involved in the creation of significant Australian film and TV productions as a creator, writer and producer. Amongst other professional credits, he co-created and co-wrote the highest grossing film in Australia in 2015 (The Water Diviner), which won the Australian equivalent of an Oscar, the AACTA best film award for 2015. He also co-created and wrote two Jack Irish series for ABC television, and wrote two other Jack Irish TV movies. Also, the novel he wrote for Pan Macmillan based on his script, The Water Diviner, sold 45,000 copies. In short, he does seem to qualify under the terms of the 'notability' Wikipedia parameters for creative professionals: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Clearly, I'm failing at the 'references' side of the equation! There's no shortage of independent reviews in the media of all the film and TV scripts Andrew has written - if I added those to the draft, would it satisfy your terms?

Thank you so much for your assistance. I really want to do this properly, but obviously need some help to get there! Casting Nasturtiums (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have is reliable sources rarely write about the script writer or other behind the scenes people. They write about the show and the actors. Therefore pages here on such behind the screens people are rare and hard to create with proper sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: - would WP:AUTHOR criteria 3 not apply/be possible to apply here, instead of requiring purely directly applying sourcing? Nosebagbear (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the case of a film or tv show there are lots of people on the creative side like producers, directors, writers etc. I passed a writer for a late night show once because he and his team won an Emmy for writing, so it is possible. Anyway, the topic is not offemsive or promotional so the submitter is welcome to move the page and see how it goes. If no one tries to delete, happy days. Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

05:48:20, 30 November 2018 review of submission by 183.87.142.97

We are trying to create Wikipedia page for few days the name of "Classic Marble Company" but unfortunately, this page was rejected again and again. So Please give me the advice on how to create or submit Wikipedia page. 183.87.142.97 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned "We" should not be doing anything at Wikipedia to promote a business. I'll action the page. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will explain further what User:Legacypac means. The first person plural pronoun "we" should very seldom be used in Wikipedia. It should only ever be used in quotation. One user account belongs to one human being, not to a group or company. Being a shared account is in itself a violation of user account policy. So is marketing. If you are trying to publicize your company, use the money that you are wasting trying to put up a Wikipedia page in order to improve your web page. Your web page really does belong to you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:27:56, 30 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Millyk01

Looking for some assistance in an article I have been attempting to create - Helloworld Travel Limited. It keeps being rejected saying it is already in existence on Wiki, referring to Helloworld Travel. They may have similar names but are different. One is a publically listed company - asx listed entity - Helloworld Travel Limited, and one is the extensive Retail network of Australian and New Zealand travel agencies known as Helloworld Travel. Any advice appreciated, as both are credible and worthy of being on Wiki. Per Flight Centre, which has 4 wiki pages so far from what I can see, and also

Woolworths group and Woolworths supermarkets. Many thanks in advance --Millyk01 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Millyk01 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is a page already. We don't need seperate pages for the company and its stores which use the same name. No comments on the examples you cite - might be correct or maybe they should be merged. Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:29:35, 30 November 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Uideyield

Hi, I made my first wikipedia posting few months ago and wish to clarify one factual issue related to its rejection. I don't care anymore at this point whether the draft gets rejected or not, but I wish to resolve one misunderstanding which was stated about the reason of rejection. I cannot accept reviewer's argument until this issue is clearly understood and accepted by the reviewer. A clarification is needed on the misunderstanding which the reviewer had on me as a writer. How do I prove that I have zero affiliation with the person I wrote about? Do I need to create a sandbox page about my identity? Why is the reviewer assuming that I must have prepared the article for the sake of commercial interest or promotional activities?

I have no idea how the reviewer could just pre-assume (without even asking the writer) that I have personal relations with the person I wrote about. This can even sound like a personal insult to a writer who attempted to prepare the article for the first time. I apologize if my citations were not good enough, but you cannot assume that I may have a personal relation with the person I wrote about. I don't even personally know him. Of course I don't work for the media company and there is no way he can pay me when he doesn't even know me. Besides, I am just an outsider who once took a course and studied Hallyu industry and someone who was curious about writing wikipedia article drafts and just wanted to give it a try through trials and errors. My personal goal was to increase English wikipedia pages for the existing Korean wikipedia pages. In that way, more English readers can have access to Asian wikipedia pages (perhaps if the English draft is available, then the English writers can also find ways together to fix the reference issue which Korean wikipedia articles hold).

All I tried to do was create an English version of his already-existing Korean wikipedia page. I do not get paid by anyone for this matter, and this is almost a personal insult to me when I have pure interest to contribute as a writer as well, but all I get is a pre-assumed comments filled with injustice.

I am not asking the reviewer to accept the draft because the draft already has a reference issue. I accept that the submission can be rejected if it's because of citation issues or because the person is "not notable", but I can never accept the reviewer's careless assumption about my purpose and intent of preparing the draft. I have no relation with a person I wrote about. I cannot emphasize enough that I want to know why the reviewer would pre-assume about something that isn't even true at all. What made him think that I must have written about someone I know or for commercial interest?

Please reconsider this issue; I want the reviewer to take back what he said and how he assumed about my personal intent of draft and I hope to cooperate in the most peaceful way and resolve this matter together. Thanks for reviewing and considering this message in advance.

Uideyield (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We get many many many paid spammers here submitting pages. The templated warning you got is not saying you have a Conflict of Interest, only that if you do you need to disclose. I would not have rejected the page on a prolific voice actor. He may well qualify for an article under WP:ENT. I can't read Korean so it is hard for me to evaluate for sure. That is why I passed over reviewing the page after moving it to Draft space. Please review WP:ENT and explain how subject meets the guideline of they do, preferably on the talkpage of the Draft so the explanation is saved with the page. Feel free to message me on my talkpage if you want me to take another look or have questions. Legacypac (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:08, 30 November 2018 review of submission by 86.166.73.171

86.166.73.171 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it a sufficient topic?


December 1

02:38:15, 1 December 2018 review of draft by Shringhringshring

I have made a draft article on an Indian fashion blogger and actress I just wanted my seniors to check if I have done a work which can verify the article in the terms of written in an encyclopedic way, if not kindly help me expanding or rewriting the article so that it meets the neutral point of view.

Thank You

Shringhringshring (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page was put in mainspace and Sent for deletion discussion. Draft redirected to mainspace after being sent to MfD. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:23:12, 1 December 2018 review of submission by Zeraouliarafik15


Zeraouliarafik15 (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page correctly rejected as WP:OR Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:27, 1 December 2018 review of draft by Madforculture


I accidentally submitted two identical articles twice for review through confusion of the process. Can I delete one of the article as they are both the same but have different names: Brett Brown / Brett Brown (actor and singer)?. Both are still pending review.

Thank you

Madforculture (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madforculture To delete Draft:Brett Brown, edit it and place {{db-g7}} at the top. An administrator will then perform the deletion, usually within 24 hours. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18:26:05, 1 December 2018 review of submission by Farooqahmadbhat

Any advice or opinion much appreciated Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

05:19:32, 2 December 2018 review of submission by Coneil8

Coneil8 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the references were relevant to my article?

Hi Coneil8. The only reference that addresses the topic directly is The Guardian. The other references may be useful for background information, but say nothing about the issue in Africa. Contrast this with Digital divide in Nigeria, where each reference is about Nigeria. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:40:31, 2 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 197.220.126.10

Hello all, I am trying to create a wikipedia page for the current Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation of Somalia.I am trying my best but unfortunately getting rejected everytime.Please help 197.220.126.10 (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:18:36, 2 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Noyster

Please would you provide me with the list of sources at the deleted page User:Ccdneu/sandbox/Alexandros Makriyannis in order that I may rewrite the article.

With thanks: Noyster (talk), 10:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No did not recognize name. Could not see page history only thst it was deleted copyvio. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:08:17, 2 December 2018 review of draft by 81.231.155.182


I have article in progress which has been declined twice now. first decline was reasonable, due to lack of third party sources. second decline seems to be due to the company info box. will it be sufficient to remove the infobox for it to be accepted?

81.231.155.182 (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:42:38, 2 December 2018 review of submission by Zeraouliarafik15

14:43:14, 2 December 2018 review of draft by Julia Kleinham


Julia Kleinham (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a deadline to meet to get this article published. I have been waiting for the 2nd review for quite a while and was wondering if there is anything I can do to speed up the process? Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Banana_Production_in_India

Thank you!

  • Deleted you should not be copying (stealing) text from other websites to make a page. I've had the Draft deleted along with the copy you moved to mainspace on Nov 12 at Indian banana trade. Since you already moved a copy to mainspace why are you here asking for a review to meet your deadline? Thank-you for bringing this to our attention. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:26, 2 December 2018 review of submission by Ananee05

I am trying to create a new page to publish my works done in film industry in the field of cinematography. Ananee05 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You totally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. See WP:AUTOBIO WP:NOTPROMO etc Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:34, 2 December 2018 review of draft by Sachinlosta


For HUMANITY 19:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

22:05:47, 2 December 2018 review of draft by FireGlaze


FireGlaze (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Asking how to create an info box at the side of the screen and how to make Mini Articles like plot and reception and anything like that

Hello, FireGlaze. The page was created by someone else yesterday. You can improve that one instead at Karen Peralta. JTP (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

04:48:17, 3 December 2018 review of submission by Loonieeex


In my opinion, Handy Backup is a program of significant importance. It exists since 2002, it has countless users throughout the world, and it is updating constantly. I don't think that all products listed in the List_of_backup_software are more important than Handy Backup. How I can rewrite an article to make it more important and helpful for Wikipedia users? Please give me an adivce.

Loonieeex (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


08:36:29, 3 December 2018 review of draft by Dominik Hellfritzsch


Hey dear AfC-Team,

I filed a request a couple of weeks ago on the above mentioned article that was declined by a reviewer who has been banned since then and who I could not contact for further information due to that. So far I have not gotten a response to said request so I hope it is okay to give it another try. I'll quote my original request here:

"Hi there,

I recently tried to create this article on a piece of software on behalf of the company I'm working for. I created an article for both the German and English Wikipedia using mostly the same sources (unless there was a more useful source exclusive to either language). The German article was accepted without a problem while it did not pass review here. By now I know that the different Wikipedias operate quite differently, but I'd still like to know how specifically I can improve the draft so I can re-submit it at some point. Sadly I cannot contact the person responsible for the review since they have since then been blocked due to sock puppetry. Maybe somebody here can help me. Thanks a lot in advance!

best,

Dominik"

Dominik Hellfritzsch (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:35, 3 December 2018 review of submission by Sree-Kumar

Have added references, to go with the matter [and, would add more], and believe - the content abides with the policies of Wikipedia. Please do the needful. Thanks. Sree-Kumar (talk) 09:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


13:37:46, 3 December 2018 review of draft by Netart nazwa

Hello, I have information that my article is an advert. Could you show me in which parts? I will be very greatfull and change my article immediately.

Netart nazwa (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

14:17:39, 3 December 2018 review of draft by Galesbury


Have started this biography. I've chosen not too get into the full biog as I'd like the community to take it and "run with it" so to speak. There are specialists in this area, so rather than make a hash of the biog and then have someone correct it, I feel a fleshing out of the biog should come from the community. Hence, my submission is not the entire lifespan of the person.

Welcome feedback!

Galesbury 14:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

16:40:56, 3 December 2018 review of submission by Crossxroads315


The reviewer said "none of he sources cover Anna in detail" but the first source is her biography. Which states that she's an artist that appeared on America's Got Talent, was a Vine personality, and it also signed to a record label. The interview source discusses her mental health, which although is a primary source, other secondary sources included have also discussed her mental health. The interview article simply shows her commitment to bringing awareness to it. Sources on HuffPost, Mashable, and Hollywood Reporter verify her participation on America's Got Talent as well as her influence on Vine. These sources are independent and reliable, and they aren't press releases or some form of advertising. She is in the process of releasing an album on a major indie label, that has many notable artists signed under them. She is worth a wikipedia article because she fits the criteria.

Crossxroads315 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)crossxroads315[reply]

Do notice that except is used (AllMusic is a good start), but everything else is a passing mention or primary. She needs multiple reliable secondary sources that cover her in detail. One is not enough (with that also being AllMusic bio to boot). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

17:39:03, 3 December 2018 review of draft by Tara bast sadie kane

I am requesting help for a message sent to my old account. The message claimed that I was vadilizing Wikipedia, but I lost the password!!!!! It's not possible because no one knows my old password or username!!!!!!! Is it possible that Wikipedia was wrong? FROM TARA BAST SADIE KANE (respond on my page) Tara bast sadie kane (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tara bast sadie kane. This page is for questions about the Articles for creation process. Please consider asking this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk. - This is where editors will try to answer any question regarding how to use Wikipedia. Just follow the link, select the relevant section, and ask away. You could always try searching Wikipedia for any help related to the topic you want to know more about. I hope this helps!
--Worldbruce (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:46, 3 December 2018 review of submission by Luckygoel1234

Luckygoel1234 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:19, 3 December 2018 review of submission by Candyman0120

}}Template:Wells Town F.C Hi Wiki users,

I'm currently creating a wiki page for a local football team where I live close to. My page has been reviewed and has come back as unable to publish due to not enough valid references (Which is understandable).

After some thorough research through the internet trying to find some valuable sources relating to Wells Town, it has come to my conclusion that there just isn't any relatable resources for them. (Not to get mixed up with Wells City FC - Two completely different clubs!) Wells Town FC has only recently started using social media for live score updates and future fixtures in the last 2 years. I have linked both their facebook page and twitter page to the wiki article. I can't seem to find any history of the Club apart from archives they have at the ground.

Can anyone please shed a little bit more light as to what I can do to improve my page?

Thanks, Candyman0120.

Candyman0120 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not notable Your search for sources proves the page can't pass our notability guidelines. I suggest working on editing and improving existing topics that interest you before trying again to create a page from scratch. New pages are not that easy - you need to find notable verifiable topic not covered in the over 5 million existing pages and that is not easy. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:47:23, 3 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Vernon123usa

History about chatbots is very essential as people are still confused as to what chatbots really are. Although the page "chatbots" exists it speaks about chatbots as a whole. The page I created shows that chatbots were simple and later on, with companies like Google and apple realized its potential, it is being integrated into various applications. I agree, the content might be less, however, people will continue to add more in time. THere are so many chatbots being developed which also need to be included here. This page should summarize the entire history of popular chatbots for easy viewing

Vernon Dmonte 22:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 4

Hello, my own article draft of AMKTech Versions has references, no copies, has used reliable sources, but wasn't accepted. What could be the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewTheGreatestGamer (talk • contribs) 08:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

08:52:39, 4 December 2018 review of draft by Josephintechnicolor

I would like to confirm that Books indexed in Google referencing the subject, Kelly (Mohre) Hyman, can support notability please. Josephintechnicolor (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josephintechnicolor. The first three books do nothing to establish notability. They are passing mentions in a cast list. I have not evaluated Young and the Restless: Most Memorable Moments, but even if it contains significant coverage of Hyman (think a chapter, or a few pages, or at least several meaty paragraphs), it would not be enough on its own to establish notability. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:38, 4 December 2018 review of draft by SpeedwayInfo


SpeedwayInfo (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I developed this page relating to my favourite sport of speedway prior anyone else on Wikipedia and and in previous seasons I will update this page regularly with the correct information.

Today, I noticed that because this page was put into draft space someone else has started a page on Wikipedia for the same subject although their page is inferior to the one that I'm creating. I do not think that this is far and reasonable.

Can I please edit that page and place my code over the inferior 2019 SGB Championship to something that looks much better on Wikipedia.

Answered on Draft:SGB Championship 2019. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:31, 4 December 2018 review of draft by MatthewTheGreatestGamer

MatthewTheGreatestGamer (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Can you help me? I had a draft with reliable sources, web sources, not copied, and done everything for a draft. What is the problem about my Draft:AMKTech Versions?[reply]

Hi MatthewTheGreatestGamer. Sources used to demonstrate notability must be independent of the topic, as the bulk of any article's sources must be. Draft:AMKTech Versions's only sources are AMKTech, which is not independent. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:31, 4 December 2018 review of draft by 134.88.35.170


I am creating this new entry for a late astrophysicist colleague who passed away tragically. I want to ensure it meets the notability requirements for academics. Can you provide feedback as to whether the current draft of the entry satisfies these? How does the formatting overall look?

134.88.35.170 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:44, 4 December 2018 review of submission by Dave Mulryan

I have never done this, but Mulryan/Nash created a whole category of advertising, and I thought that it had some relevance. Thanks for your assistance. I have no idea what I am doing, but I am doing it anyway. Thanks, Dave Mulryan


Dave Mulryan (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave Mulryan. Don't write about yourself, your family, friends, or company. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY and Wikipedia:Autobiography for further explanation of why. If you're interested in improving Wikipedia, we have millions of articles on topics to which you aren't closely connected. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:13:55, 4 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Fs2458

Hello. This is my first attempt at getting a page listed on Wikipedia. I'm not sure what other references to list or how to do so. Can you help with some direction?


Fs2458 (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fs2458. Writing a new article from scratch is one of the most frustrating and time consuming things a novice editor can attempt. Wikipedia:Your first article explains how to do it, including an entire "Gathering references" section, but there are a million easier and more rewarding ways to improve Wikipedia than writing entirely new articles. Explore Wikipedia:Community portal for ideas about how to help. After editing existing articles for a few weeks or months you'll have a much better grasp of what it takes to write a new article. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:27, 4 December 2018 review of submission by Ecoarts1

hello, my first article was accepted but then I noticed one comment declaring the article needed to be rewritten. Which is it?

Ecoarts1 (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecoarts1. The original acceptance was overturned, and the page returned to Draft:Ray Lorenzato. Three major problems were identified:
  1. Nearly every source cited is a primary source. Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. This is one of the differences between academic writing and writing for an encyclopedia.
  2. Inline citations are missing from material that requires them. Material for which a reliable, published source cannot be cited should be removed. An incomplete biography is fine; an unverifiable one is unacceptable.
  3. The reviewer also felt the "tone is also incredibly promotional". To address this, be sure to use independent sources and follow the guidance in Wikipedia:Encyclopedic style, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Stick to verifiable events and don't state reasons for them in Wikipedia's voice ("His passion for learning and teaching led him to take a year-long sabbatical", for example, is unacceptable).
--Worldbruce (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:28:03, 4 December 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Sampf

I have submitted an Article for Creation, published in the Sandbox. I am unclear on the prtocol - am I now waiting for review or I am supposed to move it elsewhere for review? Thank you very much for your help.

Sampf Sampf (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sampf (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=872008424"