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 Sejalrajput25 (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 29 January 2019. 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


January 23

02:18:52, 23 January 2019 review of submission by TiffanyShiuan


TiffanyShiuan (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TiffanyShiuan: - as the multiple reviewers have noted, it doesn't meet our tough corporate notability rules. It's not clear either of the sources is sufficiently independent as a general source. The latter one definitely isn't in terms of the article, because the bit of it actually about KKday is mostly the CMO talking - either direct quotes or indirect quotes.
I believe it is probably too soon for this company to have acquired the suitable coverage needed for a wikipedia article Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:19:12, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Lori Jo Underhill


Lori Jo Underhill (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This draft/sandbox was deleted for copyright infringement Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:14, 23 January 2019 review of draft by Pittsburghmichaels


I want to publish a wikipedia page on Kimber Kable. My first raft was denied by a wikipedia user so I would like help to make the article something that can be published and that is up to Wikipedia standards.

Pittsburghmichaels (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pittsburghmichaels. Wikipedia is not much interested in what Kimber Kable says about themselves. That's what their website is for. So throw away your first draft. The bulk of any draft should come from sources independent of the company. Think books, academic journals, magazines, and newspapers from reputable publishers, Stereophile and The Wall Street Journal, for example. WP:NCORP has more information about which sources help demonstrate notability and which don't. You'll also want a thorough understanding of WP:COI guidelines and the WP:PAID policy. WP:BFAQ#COMPANY may be helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I contacted Kimber Kable and asked them for information about their comapny that is not from their website. They sent me a PDF file. Is there a way to upload and cite a PDF file on wikipedia ?

@Pittsburghmichaels: Internal company documents may not be used, sources must be published. Moreover, materials produced by Kimber Kable cannot show that Kimber Kable is notable (is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article). Do not use information from them except for the most uncontroversial details, like what their address is. The meat of any article must come from independent sources, ones that are arms-length from the company. Most importantly, if you are editing at the company's direction and for any kind of compensation (which includes intangibles such as experience earned through an unpaid internship) then you are in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. I left key information about that on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:30:07, 23 January 2019 review of draft by Akiraa20


Hello, I have noticed that the Ryan Hart Wiki page has been rejected with the comment from DGG stating "He does not seem to have come first in any notable tournament". This is completely incorrect and shows a lack of investigation on the reviewers part, Ryan has won 2 Evo championships (the biggest fighting game event in the world) along with countless other wins in large tournaments such as DreamHack series (largest computer festival in the world) along with many other notable events, he is also holds 4 Guinness world records and has accomplished within the Esports scene then the likes of Justin Wong (which has a wiki page). Please can this be checked again but by someone who is willing to read the information present.Akiraa20 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Akiraa20 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akiraa20: - to be covered: rudeness, summarising, OTHERSTUFF and thoughts on EVO
Firstly, while nothing you've said is forbidden, unpleasant phrasing is probably not the best way to acquire another willing volunteer (flies, honey, vinegar etc)
As a note, when you've got 200 sources (or indeed, more than about 20), it's probably worth putting the best 4 on the talk page to save reviewers from the world's largest notability scavenger hunt.
That Justin Wong has an article is irrelevant as to this one - it's always possible that one shouldn't etc: if we base articles off others, it means our article quality has to go downwards. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a better phrasing of the reasoning
I am inclined to think you are right as regards EVO - I can't speak for DreamHack, and the guinness records won't qualify, but it certainly seems a suitably large tournament to satisfy. I don't have enough experience in this field to review it suitably, but it is worth another examination. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:15, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Sportsfan018


Hi, I got a rejection on my submission that the subject was not notable enough for wikipedia. The subject is a popular comic strip by an award winning author. I don't understand what the criteria for "notable" is. The reason i created the article was because I didn't find an article about it in the first place and wanted to contribute. I see all kinds of articles on wikipedia so not sure what makes one more notable over another. I included both primary and secondary sources. I understand not everything needs to be in wikipedia but this is a recognized comic strip by a known award winning author and its a bit disheartening since its my first contribution to wikipedia, i thought i was adding to the body of knowledge about a comic strip i like. Thanks Sportsfan018 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan018: - hi there. Notability is one of Wikipedia's most complicated areas - it's one of the reasons why we encourage new editors to get some experience elsewhere. For these comments I'm only commenting on notability - there are other reasons for declining a draft, so solving this may or may not be enough to qualify for article-hood.
Wikipedia has different thoughts on notability (which could be crudely summarised as "sufficient secondary source coverage in reliable/independent sources, as well as satisfying certain other restrictions). These rules vary - so an actor has different requirements to a company etc.
Reading all of the policies, in one go, to inform yourself would be enough to make you weep. The comic strip book is the easiest one to identify - Book notability - for this draft, the possible criteria are either 1 (multiple coverage in other sources, such as reviews) or 2 (won a major literary award). For the general comic strips, since they're on a website, are bound by Web notability - these are conveniently identical: enough coverage in other sources or a major award.
This is interesting as the National Cartoonists Society did give a Reuben award to Buni - this could well be considered as a suitable major award. It might be worth going to David.moreno72's talk page and asking him on it.
With regard to your sources, you need to find better ones: both the website itself and the NCS' site are helpful, but can't be used to prove notability because they are primary sources - Wikipedia needs in-depth, secondary, reliable/independent sources (newspapers, books, and some other sites etc).
In short - the draft may pass notability, however they may be other aspects that need to be fixed. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:50, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Alexander Geut


My current draft was declined because the subject seems to be insufficiently notable. Nevertheless, the statement is debatable. iTechArt is a really big company with a pool of almost 1500 engineers. It is well-known among famous enterprises, startups as well as accelerators and incubators. iTechArt has developed products for such famous companies as Convene, ClassPass, Fuze, Zefr, BuildingLink, etc.

I've gone through multiple reviews, as a result, the initial company's description has been reduced to a minimum. It may be the reason why the draft have been declined.

Also, there was a problem with the article's resources as they have been named irrelevant.

Could you please check the earlier versions of the article and help me decide what to include?


Alexander Geut (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alexander Geut. I checked the sources cited in every version of Draft:ITechArt , and the coverage of it on Tut.by and Onliner.by. My conclusion is that the company does not meet the English-language Wikipedia's notability guidelines (which are much tougher than they were a year ago), so it is not a suitable subject for an article here. Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines and procedures, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So if you are fluent in Belarusian you could try writing an article for https://be.wikipedia.org. They may have looser inclusion criteria, especially for Belarusian topics. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:45, 23 January 2019 review of draft by StaringAtTheStars


Hello, I am requesting for a more experienced editor to check all currently used sources (none of the hidden ones, I haven't checked those out for myself) in this draft for verifiability. It would also be much appreciated if someone were to quickly proof the lead section only (the rest of the page is mostly machine-translated which I am currently in the middle of rewriting). Thanks, StaringAtTheStars (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StaringAtTheStars. I'm not sure you're going to get any nibbles here, where there is a six week backlog of submitted drafts to review, and thus not much time for proofreading, copy editing, rendering second opinions, etc. on unsubmitted drafts. You might be better off asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games or perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines. Reviewing just a few of the sources, I find that The Wall Street Transcript verifies the statement where cited. L'Express is a dead link for me. Le Monde is a reliable source, but if it's used to support a direct quote, the language of that quote can't be changed. See WP:NONENG for how to handle it. MCE TV is also a reliable source, but I don't see the date "August 14, 2012" in it, and I'm not sure about the word "dossier". It mentions the July 3, 2012 special issue, the resulting controversy, and talks about the magazine's subsequent clarification/sort-of-apology for using the word "excitant" where it could be understood to mean something that they didn't intend. So there's a bit of a source-text disconnect on that one. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:01:59, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Kaiyu9028

my draft got rejected when it was under review, just want to know why Kaiyu9028 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kaiyu9028. Draft:BFG 50 was rejected and deleted for being a copyright violation of https://modernfirearms.net/en/sniper-rifles/large-caliber-rifles/u-s-a-large-caliber-rifles/serbu-bfg-50-eng/. I've left more information about copyright on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:22:47, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Johnw28

I am seeking for an article to be accepted. Name: Blu Leisure as an studio album

Johnw28 (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnw28. I assume you are talking about User:Johnw28/sandbox. The reliability of singersroom.com has been examined before at the reliable sources noticeboard. In the most recent instance it was described as, "more like a promotional vehicle than a news source". The blurb the draft cites there reads like a press release. The Hype Magazine is not a great source either; it appears to be based solely on the artist's social media posts.
Replace these two sources with three better ones that show the album meets one or more of the notability criteria for albums. The list Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has suggestions on where to look. Then add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft as described in Template:AFC submission/doc. If you can't show that the album is notable, then Wikipedia shouldn't have a stand alone article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:08:56, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Roberts.meme.circus


Roberts.meme.circus (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, so I can see that i was rejected for not having notability. I just want to know exactly what that means on Wikipedia so I can change up my draft, because SuperFly GamingPants is a real channel, created by me, and I need all the advice possible so it can be added to Wikipedia.

Thanks


@Roberts.meme.circus: Hi there. You can see the main Notability page (there are other ones for different subjects - including companies and web content.
The nutshell summary of the page reads:
"Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."
Since you don't include any sources - let alone the need for sources that are: reliable, independent, in-depth & secondary (and several of them) - unsurprisingly the draft was rejected. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:52, 23 January 2019 review of submission by Roberts.meme.circus


Roberts.meme.circus (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Also, I was trying to upload pictures to my wiki, but it hasn't worked and the guide doesn't load properly, so i would like some help regarding that too.

January 24

03:16:40, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Jelliott4

I'm baffled as to why this article has been rejected for WP:GNG. Firstly, how can an American technological achievement be of suitable notability for German-language Wikipedia, but a direct translation of the existing German article is somehow inadequately notable for inclusion in the English-language version of Wikipedia? Furthermore, it's not at all clear how this article could possibly be construed as failing to meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG. There are four bullets there (if we ignore the one that merely defines "presumed"): 1) Significant coverage--the article has four sources, three published books and one newspaper article--even by the most stringent definition of "significant coverage," I'd contend that the latter two clearly count. 2) Reliable--again, three published books (one published by SAE, no less) and one newspaper article. 3) Secondary sources--while two sources are encyclopedic in nature (tertiary source) and the newspaper article relies almost exclusively on firsthand quotations (arguably primary source), the aforementioned SAE-published book is clearly a secondary source. 4) Independent--it's almost axiomatic that books written by historians in 1973, 1996, and 2005 are independent of a one-off technological achievement that occurred 1878.
What am I missing here?
Thanks! Jelliott4 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Jelliott4 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jelliott4. Don't stress over the decline. First try to give the reviewer what they want. To that end I've added, to a further reading section, a baker's dozen of contemporary newspaper articles. You can get them through historical newspaper databases such as NewspaperArchive. If you don't have access through a library, WP:RX can get the article for you. You don't have to use all of them, but try to use a few to expand on what came from the books.
I also reorganized the original references. I don't know this particular reviewer's process, but the way the references were arranged there's a danger that a reviewer wouldn't even see the bibliography section. Many reviewers look first at the references section, and look no further if they don't like what they see. The former references section made it look as though all the content came from one author - Kimes. You can further improve the draft's chances by using inline citations to show what material came from Georgano and what from Donald. The guidelines say you don't have to do this, but since you cite Kimes inline, you clearly know how, and it may be more pragmatic to cite all of them inline than to stand on principle and argue that you shouldn't have to. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow; thanks, Worldbruce! And no, I don't have access to to all the newspaper articles you cited, nor to the original sources (which are just a copy of those cited on the original German-language Wikipedia article). But one of your newspaper articles was available online, so I added that as an inline citation where it made sense to do so. I guess I'll resubmit and see what happens.
Thanks again! Jelliott4 (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:26:13, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Pennylwang


Dear Mr./Ms.,

Regarding my rejected edit, I understand it did not have any references, and now additional references have been added. However, after clicking the Publish changes, it is still rejected,could you kindly let me know if there's more I need to do? Appreciate your help. Penny Pennylwang (talk) 03:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Pennylwang: - Hi there. Two things of note:
You haven't actually resubmitted your draft/sandbox - "publish changes" means that you saved you edits (which is vital!). However you need to redo the process you used to put it back into the Articles for Creation queue for another review.
AfC tags (decline and rejected) stay there, so future reviewers can see what caused past versions to be declined, and so what they should focus their reviewing on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Whispering - You should not have rejected the draft. You should have declined the draft. The Reject option is only for submissions that are not appropriate for improvement and resubmission. The submission was not contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That option should be specified for pages that are misuses of Wikipedia, advertising (the most common violation of the purpose of Wikipedia), attack pages, or vandalism. It was merely not consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, but was a good-faith attempt at a submission. I have not evaluated whether it should be accepted; some film festivals are notable, and some film festivals are not notable. By rejecting the submission, you made it temporarily impossible to create a new draft with the same title. So do not reject a submission unless you think that there can't be another submission with the same title. (Preventing another submission is fine for garage bands, non-notable local companies, and non-notable people.) I have taken care of the name problem by moving the rejected draft out of the way. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pennylwang - I apologize on behalf of AFC for the mistaken rejection of your draft, which should have been declined. Your new draft is now waiting for evaluation. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is at Draft:Golden Tree International Documentary Film Festival. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, one of the core tenets here at Wikipedia no original research isn't a reason to reject a draft? I reject anything that doesn't have sources. I can't tell if it's not original research or not if it doesn't have sources. Whispering(t) 13:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Whispering - First, some things are not original research. People are never original research, and companies are never original research. They are not notable without sources, but you can tell, even without sources, that they are not original research. Events are not original research. They are not notable without sources, but you can tell, even without sources, that an event is not original research. A film festival is not original research. It is true that we do not accept original research, but some things are not original research, and original research is not the only reason to decline or reject things.
Second, if you can't tell whether an idea is original research because it doesn't have sources, it is almost always better to decline it as apparently original research than to reject it. If the author provides sources, it might not be original research. (It might still be original research if the sources are his own publications.)
Third, save rejection for when you can be reasonably sure that a resubmission will be a waste of time. I see a lot of submissions that are crud, and where a resubmission will be a waste of time. This wasn't a case where resubmission was a waste of time, even though it was declined again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, apparently I've been doing it wrong then. I'll do better. Whispering(t) 20:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:08, 24 January 2019 review of draft by Otterlyhwi


Hi! I would like to ask for your help to review this article I have made. First of all, I'm sorry if my wording or grammar is a bit off. There is (2) things that I need more guidance, in which it's about my draft article titled Lee Dae-hwi.

1) How do I prove that the subject of the article is relevant enough in the songwriting area? Lee Dae-hwi has made his name in the Korean Medias that he has been active in making, composing, producing songs. He already made 8 songs (1 unreleased in music sites, but has been played on broadcast). As he already active as songwriter, it is noted that he still has not released his songs with himself as the singer. I have added the online news links for the references, but it seems that the last review I got is that it's still did not show significant coverage and not enough to prove his relevancy in such area.

2) How do I prove that Lee Dae-hwi's released songs has been released legally / How do i credit them properly? As I got the review that my article has not meet the Notability of musician, I need your guidance in which part(s) that I should fix. I need to know if I have to add more details for the songs' copyrights.

Lastly, Thank you so much for your patience in reading my questions. I would very much appreciate it if you could help me. --Otterlyhwi (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otterlyhwi (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:52:05, 24 January 2019 review of submission by 2409:4070:2093:54A7:C038:4361:BEA7:EF0B


Well he is a youth activist working towards various organisations, his profile may be used by other people to understand him better

2409:4070:2093:54A7:C038:4361:BEA7:EF0B (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:05:16, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Positivity2


We have added more notable information


Ralf Friedrichs ( Born in Germany October 31,1961) He is an Author of various books https://g.co/kgs/FNNVsV and https://g.co/kgs/bSdVvU and has exclusively written articles for TheFix online magazines https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/look-through-windshield-life-not-rear-view-mirror-life, https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/you-owe-it-yourself-be-great, https://www.thefix.com/living-sober/even-after-addiction-while-recovery-believe-yourself and the Sobernation magazine, https://sobernation.com/dont-ever-give-up-my-advice-that-will-inspire-you-forever/ inspiring millions around the world.He has podcasts Ralf Friedrichs Show on Iheartradio, https://www.iheart.com/podcast/966-ralf-friedrichss-show-30264070/?cmp=android_share and on Google Music, https://play.google.com/music/m/Iincn4f5jejfoeuysowxroi4spq?t=Ralf_Friedrichs_s_Show. His show Take Your Life Back Today Show has had over 2400 episodes on Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCufPHmusCuRRtfm7cvmdBFw.


Positivity2 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Positivity2: - as far as I can tell, all this is primary content - links to things he has written. Notability has to be established by secondary sources - for author notability and Web notability the usual form is secondary works about his work. This is often in the form of reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:02:57, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Rosiedylan59


Rosiedylan59 (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


As suggested, I have edited the article so that it only includes secondary sources citing the information provided. I've also made a few grammatical edits that help the article to read more like an encyclopedic entry. Please consider these changes and let me know if there is anything else I can omit or include to improve this piece! I look forward to your comments.

16:48:40, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Jeyabalajitm


I have updated the references of the source from various government websites, other public forums and books from different authors. Please re-review.

Jeyabalajitm (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:07:30, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Aslivker


I have added additional Notability by industry experts, leading business analysts and established community in API Management space. Also, I used very similar article as an example of a valid and published Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong_Inc.

Thank you for your assistance. I will appreciate any feedback to make this article accepted. Andrew Slivker Aslivker (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:42, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Anarulkhaled786


Anarulkhaled786 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarulkhaled786: - there functionally isn't any content in this. Its only source also would appear not be suitable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:15, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Tennisevaluation


Tennisevaluation (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC) Hello, I am makig a new article on Wikipedia and the question is if it will be automatically done for lets say wikipedia slovakia or other countries or I have to do this separately from each country I iwsh to have it in? Also my father was a famous athlete but then there was no intertnet he was representing his coutry and is hundrets of magazines an news a[ers and nothing on internet.. this way i see wkipedia as absolutelly ....you know....[reply]

@Tennisevaluation: - articles don't automatically translate across, as machine translating is too poor. Additionally different wikis do things in different ways (including what they decide to include), so something acceptable here might not be elsewhere.
If you created an en-wiki article, someone looking to create one in another language might find this one and translate it. That however is fairly rare. Others deliberately seek out articles to translate, but given our 5.7 million articles is presumably also quite rare.
The quickest route (all supposing you create a suitable article here first, of course) is to take a look at our translation advice page, though this is fairly contingent in speaking Slovakian, of course. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:35, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite


I have updated this page to remove corporate language and rely on reliable sources.

Potatowrite (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:41:45, 24 January 2019 review of draft by Sikh Milly


Hello I please need some help regarding some page coding. I am creating an artist profile for UK Grime MC 'Subten' but the list of his Singles keep appearing at the bottom of the page under the References and I cannot seem to get the table in the right place. Guidance would be appreciated thank you. it's currently under Draft:Subten.

Sikh Milly (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:07, 24 January 2019 review of submission by Nickbaines1


Hi there, I was wondering if you could tell me what the submission on Judy Hall was missing to be included. The intial two times it was declined I was given reasons and suggestions of what to add. The third time the post was rejected. I would like to know what additional material is needed. DO you need me to reference all 45 published books? More personal bio details such as age, DOB, place of birth? Pictures?

I have a lot of extensive career information the subject's credentials in the Mind Body and Spirit market, though much of this is tied to published works, Amazon links (which I know is not allowed) and details that I cannot link to independent third party articles.

Advice on how to proceed, and on what is needed to legitimise this article to be accepted would be greatly received as this rejection didn't highlight anything for me to work on.

Best Nick


Nickbaines1 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


January 25

00:34:55, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Julianhyde


It's been a year since the submission was declined, and Apache Arrow has been steadily gaining in adoption. 3,000 stars on GitHub are an indication of this.

Maryland database professor Daniel Abadi, who has no connection with the project but has done considerable work on database memory representations, wrote an analysis of Arrow's strengths and weaknesses in March and recommended the project. Do you think a paragraph summarizing his analysis would satisfy the "notable" and "independent" criteria?

I do not agree that the article is "written like an advertisement". The claims made in the article are goals of the project, and a piece of technology is defined by its goals and constraints.

01:28:57, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Athu1


Athu1 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I did not submit this page for an additional review. That was done by somebody else. Also, it had been mentioned to resubmit after filming started, which I did. I also gave sources to that. Many other film articles have come out including the same actor's movie Sarkar. Because of this, I request a re-review of this film article and to reinstate this as a draft rather than reject this.

User:Athu1 - I would not have rejected the draft as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, but I probably would have rejected the draft as failing film notability. Films that have not yet begun production are very seldom notable, but films that are in production are also usually not notable, unless the production itself is notable. The film has just begun production, and the article says nothing about the production that would make it notable. Drafts and articles about this film have been repeatedly resubmitted, which is tendentious. I see no reason to give the draft on the film yet another review. The only real question is whether the draft should be deleted and create-protected. I suggest just leaving the rejected draft alone for six months, after which time it will be deleted as an expired draft, and then wait until October 2019 when the film is released. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:49:14, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Suranyimeng


Suranyimeng (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


06:51:13, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Robinsonritchie


I am asking for an advice on how to publish a Biography of an Artist. I don't know how to do that. Could you please help me with that. Thank you Robinsonritchie (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robinsonritchie - Since the artist is yourself, first read the autobiography policy. If you satisfy artist notability, someone is likely to create the biography about you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:29, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Riga-to-Rangoon


Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi...i am trying yo submit this draft but am having problems with it...i have this link for a draft i made and saved but am not sure it reaches you? can you help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Edward_Gustave_Brisch

Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Riga-to-Rangoon - You have not yet submitted the draft. Do you want it submitted for review? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes please Robert - can you do this for me? or what should i do next? Many thanks indeed... Riga-to-Rangoon (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:01:53, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Aondofasamuel


Aondofasamuel (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aondofasamuel: - as the reviewer said, there may be other issues with the draft, but the clearest is the lack of sources. Wikipedia articles are required to have sources that are: in-depth, reliable, independent & secondary. I suggest having a read of referencing for beginners

12:02:41, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Lawrencedudley-parallax


Hey, as this is a publicly traded company I'd like to expand on the information available on Wikipedia about it. The founder, Arnold Ziff, is considered to be sufficiently notable for inclusion so I believe that the PLC he founded should be as well.

Lawrencedudley-parallax (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencedudley-parallax: - unfortunately Wikipedia specifically rejects inherited notability - the company would need to stand on its own merits. Additionally, there is functionally no detail in this draft and it currently lacks any suitable sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:03, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Spook Electro


Spook Electro (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spook Electro: - the reviewer was correct. The draft both completely lacks sourcing and also a list of genres and basic biographical details would not be sufficient content. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:22, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie

14:01:22, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie


Thank you for the sources. I’ve went through it thoroughly and made changes to the wiki page. Please look at it and accept or comment. You should accept this submitted article for the following reasons:

1) Uses only Verifiable- reliable third-party sources: Reputable online magazines: reuters.com tenextweb.com trendhunter.com entrepremeur.com

Local online newspapers: news.am armenpress.am

Government websites: gov.am

2) Has a Neutral POV- neutral tone throughout, no opinions just facts, no judgmental language, no loaded words, flattery or words that imply lack of credibility, no promotion, only facts

3) No original research- not opinion piece

4)Article content subject is notable, other similar wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)

Jack Helie (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:09:32, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Tejasmaan


Tejasmaan (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir u tell how to make a articale

See WP:YFA and WP:N. Your article does not have a single source, which violates the verifiability policy. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:05, 25 January 2019 review of draft by Millipede


Hello, I was working on an article about American violinist Anton Miller and wanted to link to the article on violinist Franco Gulli, but that article exists in Italian and not in English, so I wasn't sure how to create the link. Any advice will be appreciated.

I think maybe I should direct this question to the Help desk . . . Sorry if I put it in the wrong place.

Millipede (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - reasons left on your talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:33, 25 January 2019 review of draft by JohnLindam82


We are trying to publish company page following the guidelines for creating company pages. We keep getting declined due to the guidelines, despite referencing independent, reliable, third party sources. What would it take to get the page published. For example, would a major article in a state-owned news paper or other media with national coverage be sufficient?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JohnLindam82/sandbox/ozonetech

JohnLindam82 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnLindam82 - Who is "we", and what is your affiliation with the company? A user account should be that of one person, and any connection between that person and the subject of a draft or article, such as a company, is a conflict of interest and must be declared in accordance with the conflict of interest policy.
If you are spending corporate money to try to publish an article about your company, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia, you might make better use of corporate resources by improving your own web page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:36:40, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Associatekono

Template:PINTURA:PALABRA

Associatekono (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:45, 25 January 2019 review of draft by DMayumba


I have a number of sources that do not have an online presence as they are magazines from the 70s. I can cite the info as a journal but was wondering if I can insert images of the articles. If so, what is the best way to do so? Thanks!

DMayumba (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DMayumba do not upload images of the articles, doing so would almost certainly be a violation of copyright. A complete citation is sufficient. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:02, 25 January 2019 review of submission by 2601:601:1501:3E90:5D72:37B9:12D1:2E91


2601:601:1501:3E90:5D72:37B9:12D1:2E91 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 18:53:26, 25 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rsesguy


My draft article T. Mark Harrison was rejected without comment. Please provide some guidance how I might improve it. Thanks, Mark

Rsesguy (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because it was an unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.generalgeology.com/speaker/prof-dr-t-mark-harrison/ Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:07:50, 25 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rsesguy


I have been informed that my draft article T. Mark Harrison has been deleted due to "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.generalgeology.com/speaker/prof-dr-t-mark-harrison/)". The site specified is bibliographic text that I provided to the conference to apprise attendees of my background. This is my original prose and should not have been copyrighted by this organization. I could ask them to remove the text but that doesn't advance knowledge. Thanks you, Mark Harrison

Rsesguy (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rsesguy - Please read the autobiography policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:29:13, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Marcelju


The Official name of the award is RSA Conference..... I was asked by the conference organizers if the title of this article can change RSA--> RSAC Or to: RSA Conference Is this possible?

Marcelju (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marcelju The RSA Conference and the Award have seperate articles, as they are distinct subjects. The award is given at the conference. There may however be a case for merging the two articles into one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:48, 25 January 2019 review of submission by Rontl


I don't know if I'm really asking for a "Re-review" at this point, I just clicked on the button that said "ask for advice," and it took me here. I don't understand how a person was supposed to go about asking for advice prior to this, so hopefully you'll be able to help me. When it was first rejected, I wrote on the wall of the person who rejected it, and never heard back. Then, more recently, I posted my questions on the wall of the Help Desk, and also never heard anything, and eventually another notification came that it was denied. Below, I have made those points again, and I would very much appreciate it if someone could help me understand.

It was earlier decided that this organization does not meet the standards for Notability, and it is true that the Wall Street Journal only has had brief mentions of the organization. However, the WSJ only asks for information from recognized experts in a given field. The fact that the Wall Street Journal and Forbes have turned to the Reverse Logistics Association, multiple times, for information, is what should validate the organization as being thought leaders in the field. The Wall Street Journal didn't just make a passing reference to the organization or something it did, it turned to the organization for its expertise and knowledge of the field.

Quoting from the page on Notability WP:ORGIN, “Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. “

This organization has not only attracted the attention of reliable sources, these reliable sources clearly believe the organization is, itself, a reliable source, having quoted it so many times. It is true that we do not have a long article about the organization in the WSJ, but no trade organization gets that kind of article written about itself. The fact that the WSJ and Fortune find the organization to be a reliable source of information seems like “verifiable evidence that the organization has attracted the notice of reliable sources.”

Moreover, my claim that Notable trade organizations do not get long magazine articles written about them seems to be supported by other pages, as well. It seems that the standard for professional organizations that is in use is not the one outlined in the Notability page, and I would say that this is a good thing.

I just looked at some of the organizations listed here: List_of_industry_trade_groups_in_the_United_States I only looked at National organizations, and I only looked at the first column of “Advertising, Business and Marketing” organizations, representing 13 organizations. (There appear to be 14 organizations, but “Ad 2” redirects to American Advertising Federation, so there are only 13 unique organizations there) However, all of the following 10 articles, I would argue, have received less media attention that has the RLA, and have less to point to, in the way of “substantial” coverage.

  • American_Advertising_Federation
  • AMC_Institute
  • American_Independent_Business_Alliance
  • Association_for_Convention_Operations_Management
  • Association_of_Chamber_of_Commerce_Executives
  • Association_of_National_Advertisers
  • Center_for_Audit_Quality
  • Community_Associations_Institute
  • Compete_America

These 10 organizations don’t provide links to any substantial coverage anywhere outside of their own publications. In this very small sample, the RLA has more media coverage than over two-thirds of the trade association organizations’ pages I looked at. A small number of those organizations are able to point to something outside its own publications:

  • Association_for_Information_and_Image_Management - Only has a mention in a guide to trade associations
  • Commercial_Real_Estate_Women - Three very short descriptions of the organization creating new chapters, etc.

In short, it would seem that the de facto standard for professional and trade organizations is not as stringent as that which is described on the Notability page, and the RLA page has been held to a standard that is not applied to any other professional organizations.

Either 2/3 of those organizations have to have their pages taken down, or it must be admitted that the standard for trade organizations is not as stringent as the general standard for organizations. Because the RLA has more evidence for significance than these organizations, I would argue that either the RLA page needs to be allowed, or else these other groups need to have their pages taken down. And I believe that these other organizations deserve to have their organizations listed in Wikipedia, as does the RLA.

I would argue that a different standard should be applied to not-for-profit trade associations than for other organizations. Every adult in the US is a potential customer of a car company or electronics company, so magazines like to publish articles about them, because people like to read articles about them. For trade associations, however, there is a very small number of people who might be interested in any one organization, so there is no incentive for magazines to publish articles about them. Magazines just don’t write in-depth articles about trade associations the way they do about companies or other groups like Greenpeace or AARP, etc.

Notability is an important criteria, because it prevents someone from writing an article about their favorite bowling alley. I absolutely agree Wikipedia is right to have standards about notability. But I would argue that for professional organizations, notability should be based on what an organization has done, and who else finds it credible and notable, not just where it has been profiled. And if the Wall Street Journal and Fortune think that an organization is notable enough to cite as a source for information, it seems to me like that should be enough. Thanks.


Rontl (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


January 26

00:38:54, 26 January 2019 review of submission by 35.136.141.133


35.136.141.133 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC) da boi derinho is on spotify... and he exists... this is no joke[reply]

The subject is definitely not notable. According to your logic, everyone should have an article here. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:05:59, 26 January 2019 review of submission by Ft critical


I don't think that is fair, it is a very good novel and is deserving of inclusion in Wikipedia. Happy for you to call me on [REDACTED - AE]. I think it is harsh to not include it. Ft critical (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are too few sources to show that the subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. We all have things that we wish to have on this 5th popular website, but it has to pass the strict content policies here. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 01:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:19:11, 26 January 2019 review of submission by Aprdeepak


Aprdeepak (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:03:28, 26 January 2019 review of submission by JuvisCelms


As I said I got declined and the response said I need to come here!

JuvisCelms (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:20:45, 26 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by PalMaster



PalMaster (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PalMaster: - please tell us what page you're referring to and what question you're asking! Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: - I'm referring to Dubai Harbour PalMaster (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:31, 26 January 2019 review of submission by Aaron Justin Giebel


Please check it out Aaron Justin Giebel (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Justin Giebel: - Kiddle is currently going through the Miscellany for deletion process here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kiddle - it can't be re-reviewed until it's finished that process. The earliest this will be is about 48 hours - the discussion may be extended if there is a split in viewpoints. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:53, 26 January 2019 review of draft by Mtoz13


Hi, I forgot to title my article - its my first one and just been submitted for review. The Title Should be: Schaun Tozer My Username is Mtoz13 Mtoz13 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtoz13: - hi there. The draft was moved already, so that's resolved. It was declined because it currently doesn't have suitable sources - if you have a click on some of the blue links in the decline notice that should point you in the right place. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:26, 26 January 2019 review of submission by Reggaegirlz01


Reggaegirlz01 (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]



January 27

Request on 03:17:24, 27 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Aprdeepak


@Aprdeepak: I have moved your draft to Draft:Theni Eswar (4) since a different user submitted three drafts on this person previously. What is your question for us? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:23:50, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Malewis8805

Why has my submission been declined? All information is factual and has documented evidence. I have seen Wikipedia pages with lesser content. I don't understand. Malewis8805 (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Malewis8805: - as far as I can tell this is the page you are talking about?
If so, it's being deleted because you ceased working on it - we don't perpetually hold non-active documents. If a draft goes 6 months without an edit, it automatically deletes, though if you want it back you can just click on the link and get it back, as I see you did in a past version. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:52:24, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Anonvmp



Firstly I wrote the article on arabic I thought it’ the arabic side then it has been refused so I transalted it and also refused!!


Anonvmp (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonvmp: - this draft fails several areas, badly, that would prohibit it from being an article. You need to read writing your first article, which will give you some information on sourcing. Sources to demonstrate notability need to be in-depth, reliable, independent (no bias, not interviews etc),and secondary. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:49, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Elphas Mashamba2


Elphas Mashamba2 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NBIO. Not enough sources. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 06:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:29, 27 January 2019 review of draft by Sportsfan018


Sportsfan018 (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to publish an article about a comic strip or its author who is already mentioned in multiple article on Wikipedia. I submitted the drafts for both and they were both rejected for not notability/not enough primary sources. the Wikipedia article mentioned the author is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_webcomic_awards he won a National cartoonist Reuben award but the reviewer rejected the article/source as a category award. the draft pages are Buni and Ryan pagelow. he also mentioned that the reference for the author's book (the publisher's site of the book) does not count because it is not independent. can you please help clarify these obstacles to publishing? I would think since the author is listed as an award winner on other Wikipedia pages, it is already notable to have his own page? I am a bit frustrated here and just want to recognize the author and the comic since it already won awards. thank you

Hello @Sportsfan018: the main issue is your citations are to the awards site, and to the subject's publisher. What we need to see is uninvolved people talking about Pagelow, like writeups about his work by culture journalists, mentions in newspapers, etc. Winning the award is great, but since it's not the Nobel Prize the award itself isn't automatic qualification. Please take a good look at WP:Notability (people) to see what kind of coverage of him we need, and keep up the good work WP:Citing sources! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:44:58, 27 January 2019 review of submission by IZinePro


IZinePro 09:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@IZinePro: - there is nowhere near enough content and ImDB is not a suitable source for demonstrating notability. Please read writing your first article before progressing further with writing an article from scratch Nosebagbear (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:14, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Washoo ram wr


Washoo ram wr (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Washoo ram wr: - Wikipedia doesn't exist for self-promotion - that type of content needs to go on social media Nosebagbear (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:20:13, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Mbenyik


Dear Wikipedia Team,

I am approaching you regarding the Wikipedia article „György Droppa”, which is full of false or misleading information. I have checked the references and sources of this article thoroughly and, after having consulted with the person concerned several times, I decided to collect the referred sources and other publications available to refute the beforementioned article. The refutation of the original text of the Wikipedia article on György Droppa is large and many times over the usual Wikipedia text size. I have tried to modify (edit) the article "György Droppa" but I was unsuccesful doing so.

Regretfully upto this very moment no reaction in merit has come from you. For this reason I request you to look into this matter and reply as soon as possible how I could refute, correct or delete the Wikipedia article on „György Droppa” in a proper way.


Awaiting your early reply,

Best regards, Mbenyik Mbenyik (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Mbenyik (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbenyik: - so firstly, you can't create another article with a different perspective on an already-existing topic, see point of view forking, that would prohibit any chance of making an article neutral.
The first place to take a dispute on an article's content is the article's talk page. Raise your concerns, listen to the reasoning of the reverter - all key initial steps to take before escalating.
A key thing to remember is that Wikipedia requires sourcing for controversial statements. In the case of a living person, generalised sources (e.g. just putting a source at the bottom) isn't sufficient - they have to be mapped to controversial statements (all the numbered citations you see).
Your large edit didn't have this, so regardless of accuracy or inaccuracy, it's not surprising it was reverted. I suggest reading inline sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:08, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Naveengrande


Naveengrande (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:03:11, 27 January 2019 review of submission by RockPhotoGirl


RockPhotoGirl (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I did a bio page for a music recording artist who I am assisting.

The structure of the page and the content contained therein are no different than any other artist bio pages that you have published already.

All of his information is relevant including his awards, his albums, his performances, single releases, he's #1 on Country Music Stations right now plus he has music videos out and his music is available on all platforms.

So why was my submission rejected?

15:12:10, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Junaidkoil


Junaidkoil (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Junaidkoil: - amongst other things, this draft has no sources, and thus is automatically unsuited for article status. I suggest reading my first article for some advice here. referencing for beginners can advise on the "how aspect". If there aren't any suitable sources, then this content isn't, yet, suitable for Wikipedia Nosebagbear (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:14, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Rtigue50


Rtigue50 (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


what needs fixed?

Hi Rtigue50. Wikipedia:Your first article describes the general process. It's very difficult to get an encyclopedia article about a business accepted. The biggest hurdle is proving that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. By rejecting the draft, the reviewer is essentially saying that no matter what you do, a draft on that topic will not be accepted.
Creating a new article is one of the most challenging, time consuming, and frustrating things a new editor can attempt. There are a million easier and more beneficial ways to improve Wikipedia by editing existing articles. I've left a basket of links on your talk page that may help you regroup. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:20, 27 January 2019 review of draft by Jeffcoll2222


Jeffcoll2222 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do this?? 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.

Hi Jeffcoll2222. The message in the big pink box at the top of the draft (and in the big yellow box on your talk page) contains numerous links that explain the "how". A more fundamental question is, "Should you do this?" Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Writing one never ends well. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:14, 27 January 2019 review of submission by FALCONBEAST101


FALCONBEAST101 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) why is my web page declined[reply]

@FALCONBEAST101: - this clearly isn't suited to be a Wikipedia article. It is functionally a 1-line advertisement to yourself. Wikipedia articles don't advertise and provide neutral explanations of topics. Social media would be more suited to your content. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:41, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Rtigue50


what do I need for this article to be published? Rtigue50 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Please don't submit a duplicate help request unless no-one has commented on the original within 48 hours. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:02, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Iamsouravrana


Iamsouravrana (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:19, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Eth132489

I am requesting assistance on how to verify my sources. Eth132489 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:28, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Professor talbot


Hi,

Will you please send me an update on how I can improve my article so that it can be published. I don't see any reason whatsoever as to why it would be rejected.

Thank you. Prof. T Professor talbot (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor talbot: - several reasons are particularly evident. The easiest to identify is the sourcing issue. Corporate notability rules are tougher than for other articles, meaning the sourcing quality must be better. This means multiple (preferably at least 3 sources) that are: in-depth, reliable, independent (this rules out interviews and pseudo-interviews), and secondary .
The first source isn't in-depth, and the other (sources 2&3 are the same) is mostly put together by words from the CEO, making it a non-independent source.
It is also quite an advertorial article - remember an article can be advertorial while still being accurate. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:53:59, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Peter.LC77


To whom it may concern,

I am requesting a re-review of my draft as I have added additional information on the career of Peter Cardillo as well as additional sources/references to support the new information.

I would very much appreciate this re-review.

Thank you. Peter.LC77 (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter.LC77: - for a re-review for a corrected draft, you'll need to resubmit it, in the same way you submitted it to begin with. It'll then re-enter the system and reviewed in the normal style. Thanks for taking comments on board, I wish you luck with the review Nosebagbear (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:45, 27 January 2019 review of submission by Koala2020


Hi, First major article I (attempt to) publish on the English Wikipedia. A little at a loss as to what would be considered worthwhile evidence of this person's notability. I'm linking to the honorary citizen certificate that was awarded to Mr. Barnett. I will link to it from within the article if necessary. Please let me know if there are any other resources that can be used to demonstrate notability. http://sarabogen.com/Barnett/Ariel%20-%20Honorary%20Citizen%20certificate,%20Paula,%20Kansas.jpg Much appreciated. Koala2020 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koala2020 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Koala2020: the primary issue is that you have provided no sourcing for the statements made in the article. That information surely came from somewhere, so you must cite the sources you use.
No, please do not upload the certificate, that would be a WP:Primary source. We don't need you to make a case for why he is important, we need you to cite other people saying that he is significant.


Please note the above summary of the Notability guideline, and you can also read WP:Notability (people) to get a better idea of the benchmark to meet. But the primary issue is you must cite your sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

03:04:45, 28 January 2019 review of draft by E2J3


E2J3 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newer editor and trying to add my first article. The first editor who reviewed the article said it wasn't notable enough or couldn't tell if it was notable due to lack of citations, so I added several additional citations to articles in magazines and additional news coverage. The second editor said they wouldn't approve it because it looked like citations had just been thrown at it giving it the appearance of Refbombing the page. I'd like to improve the citations if I've not been clear with them. I definitely wasn't trying to bomb the page to give the appearance of notability. Help would be appreciated.

06:19:25, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Nirupammathur


Because I've revised my article and added more details to it. Please insist if any kind of change is required to the subject. It would be helpful for me as well. Nirupammathur (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:32:20, 28 January 2019 review of draft by Cmclean74


Hi, I have submitted a draft of a page which has been declined with the reason being that my sources are all self-created. I don't really understand this comment as my inline reference are places like the New York Times, Washington Post, CBC, Toronto Star, National newspaper and Google Cultural Institute. If there are individual issues I can understand that and can work to fix them, but it seems surprising that sources such as those are not sufficient (and they are certainly not created by me!) Cmclean74 (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC) Cmclean74 (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:20:42, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Salemsalehsa

I declined your draft because it reads like an advertisment for the foundation, articles need to be written in a neutral tone. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:20:42, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Salemsalehsa


This page is a translation for an already exist approved page in Arabic in this link: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9_(%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B9), and its already includes many useful and helpful information for a lot of people.

Qiddiya Area/Project where I belong to; deserve to have a page in wikipedia to share information about it same as any other place.

Salemsalehsa (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:57, 28 January 2019 review of draft by Whizzy run

Whizzy run (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving some comments at the top of your draft shortly. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:30, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Naveengrande


Naveengrande (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the decline says he is not notable enough for an article, you have supplied no sources whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:51:57, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Shailaza


The news of my book has been published in English Daily DNA dated 16 January 2019. http://epaper2.dnaindia.com/index.php?pagedate=2019-1-16&edcode=131201&subcode=131201&mod=1&pgnum=2 in the after hours edition. My articles have been published in the English section of Rashtradoot Newspaper http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1999539/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/28january2019#page/6/2 (page 6/11): Interview with Jeffery Archer http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1997464/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/26january2019#page/6/2 (page 6/11): Interview with Abhishek Singh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhishek_Singh_(artist) http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1994438/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/24january2019#page/6 : Article on food of Jaipur Literature Festival http://epaper.rashtradoot.com/1988224/RASHTRADOOT-JAIPUR/20january2019#page/6 : Article on the preparation at the Jaipur Literature Festival

This is one of the oldest newspapers in Rajasthan. Shailaza (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shailaza: Wikipedia isn't a place for free advertising about your book. The fact that you've had articles published in newspapers doesn't help show notability of you or the book. The criteria for which books should have articles about them in Wikipedia are found here: WP:NBOOK and for biographies it is WP:NBIO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:36:19, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Lmsmaster


The article was rejected for 'not being notable enough'. There are a number of other LMS which have the same importance and equivalent sourcing which remain in the system, most notably DoceboLMS, which is very similar to LearnUpon. I note that the other closest equivalent to LearnUpon and Docebo, Litmos, has also been removed in the last few months. This does not seem consistent.

Lmsmaster (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lmsmaster: Just because there's an article about one of your competitor's products, it doesn't automatically follow that there should be one about yours. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article is considered on its merits. The DoceboLMS article was created eight years ago. The criteria for inclusion have changed since then. The deletion of the Litmos article illustrates that Wikipedia is constantly evolving and articles that don't belong are often deleted, once someone spots that they don't meet the criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:50:08, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Acmad1930

The page was rejected with undefined as the reason and I'm just looking for a clearer answer. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmad1930 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Acmad1930: you would have to email the decliner to ask the specifics; I find it odd they didn't explain it more clearly, and also marked it as an unsuitable topic (not just an unsuitable draft).
Personally, I think this topic would be hard-pressed to meet WP:Notability unless this specific district is famous in the history of mosquito control rather than just being one of perhaps hundreds doing similar work.
Is Alameda's group significant beyond many hundreds of others? Going by the draft it seems pretty routine, and also it is written more as an "About Us!" page with verbiage like "ACMAD strives to provide an exemplary model of good government through fiscal transparency and accountability."
My personal opinion: you would be better off writing a broader article about the Mosquito Abatement Act in California, rather than focus on one small group, out of many small groups. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:45, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Nickbaines1


I'm requesting a re-review as I have amended and added to this article following feedback from editors. I have referenced a large catalogue of published works including ISBN's and linked to independent articles that reference the subject's works. I'm also seeking further feedback as necessary.

Many thanks for your time and help

Best Nick


Nickbaines1 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickbaines1: - to get it re-reviewed you'll need to re-submit it. Once you've done that it will be reviewed like it was before. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:23, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Cb912


Hello! I'm requesting a re-review because I feel that the subject meets the requirements for WP:COMPOSER, specifically point # 2, for work on "All The Kids Are Doing It", and #1 for writing the music and lyrics to the albums "Love Me Love Me Not", and "Young Kind of Love". In addition, subject is frequently covered in Playbill Magazine and BroadwayWorld, two of the most prominent news outlets for the musical theatre industry, which I feel would qualify for point #1 under 'Other'.

Regarding reliable sources, the subject is frequently covered in Playbill & BroadwayWorld, as well as notable LGBT news outlets, The Advocate & Out Magazine. The coverage is not passing mentions, but rather articles directly related to work that Mr. Contreras has developed or is working on. Any other thoughts or advice is appreciated! Thank you for your help!

Cb912 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:35:48, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Engr Abdirtahman


Engr Abdirtahman (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:00, 28 January 2019 review of submission by Andrericks


Andrericks (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


23:26:43, 28 January 2019 review of submission by 162.129.251.103


Hi, this person fits WP:NACADEMIC, namely criteria 1 and criteria 3. Criteria 1: He is one of the most cited scientists in his field (please check the referenced google scholar citation page and note that as of now he has been cited more than 21000 times). Criteria 3: He is a fellow of the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering, as noted in the reference document from the AIMBE website. Scientists with far less scholarly merit have their page approved so I'm surprised this keeps getting rejected. Even his PhD student has a page! 162.129.251.103 (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


January 29

00:47:56, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Tots & little ones matter!

Hi, I was wondering if anyone might be able to check my draft for copyright concerns. Its Copyvios result is "Violation Unlikely". Is there anything concerning here or is it ready for publication? Thanks.

Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:58:27, 29 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Author Kharisma


 Is it possible to use some of the information about a musician that is relevant to another published article?  For example, Joseph Bailey's father has a wikipedia article that is published and the two are closely related in a career sense.  Joseph started music because of his father's media influence.  There is also a wikipedia article on Virginia musicians.  Could Joseph Bailey's information be shared there since he contributes to music scene in Virginia?

Author Kharisma (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:05, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie


I was told that if I think my editor made a wrong decision, or have other concerns about the review, I can ask here for help. So yes, I would like to resubmit the article, I've read all the comments and wiki explanations and rules of notability and article submission and this is what I came up with, and I edited the article to go exactly with wiki rules:

1) Uses only Verifiable- reliable third-party sources: Reputable online magazines used: reuters.com tenextweb.com trendhunter.com entrepremeur.com

Local online newspapers used: news.am armenpress.am

Government websites used: gov.am

2) Has a Neutral POV- neutral tone throughout, no opinions just facts, no judgmental language, no loaded words, flattery or words that imply lack of credibility, no promotion, only facts

3) No original research- not opinion piece

4)Article content subject is notable, other similar wiki pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threema https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_(software)


Jack Helie (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:23:37, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Lxy069


Lxy069 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Hi there,

I created a wiki page Draft:Aglaia Kong , which was reviewed and rejected, the rejection reason is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia".

After learned some knowledges, I revised the content of this wiki page for approving, and I found that, the changing content can be publish but can't let the page into review progress again.

So, could you kindly help me with the problem? Thanks in advance.

09:20:07, 29 January 2019 review of submission by Animegearlab


When going through the WP:NBOOK section that was referenced upon the article being declined, I see a section that notes the following:

This page in a nutshell: A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

On the article I've written, I cite 2 separate areas where the book has been reviewed by notable sources (Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly). Both of these sources have Wikipedia pages and are major media websites. The above snippet from the WP:NBOOK section states that to be considered a notable book it only needs 1 (or more) of the listed criteria. One of the options noted is to have the book appear in 2 or more published sources independent of the book itself and can include reviews.

I've cited both of the published reviews on the article itself but will include them here as well for reference: Library Journal: https://www.libraryjournal.com/?reviewDetail=the-chronicles-of-kale-a-dragons-awakening Publisher's Weekly: https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-937004-29-3

Since this meets the requirements in that section, I kindly request another review of the article. Thank you very much for your time!

Animegearlab (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would just observe that both the cited 'reviews' are simply insider publications aimed at informing libraries and booksellers what's available to them. Effectively a stock list and summary. Hardly in-depth coverage or analysis which might then have met Criterion 1 of WP:BKCRIT. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply! Can you please help me understand what type of review is needed to meet criteria so that I can continue searching sources? After reviewing many New York Times bestsellers, I've seen that a lot of their reviews are in a similar manner. A brief synopsis of the story, followed by minor portions of personal input and concluded with a summary of their final thoughts. This is what is seen on the two current pages I've cited. So, I'm not sure what exactly I'm to be looking for. Since Library Journal and Publisher's Weekly are two of the more credible sources available for reviews, I went through and saw that this is how they handle many of the books that have been reviewed. I poked around Wikipedia trying to gain more insight as to what specifically to seek in terms of reviews, but couldn't find any solid clarification. Thank you once again for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animegearlab (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:21:52, 29 January 2019 review of draft by Warrenlead


The article is about a computer Bulletin Board that existed a long time ago before the internet. There are other Bulletin Board Wikipedia pages with very little or no references. E.g. Event Horizons BBS There are plenty of references that the BBS existed ie the node list and images of the the logon screen and menus. There are no newspaper articles or books on this bbs so very difficult to provide any further references unless you can offer some suggestions.

Warrenlead (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:25:37, 29 January 2019 review of submission by 2601:1C0:6F00:1610:444:A828:21F5:8E4D


2601:1C0:6F00:1610:444:A828:21F5:8E4D (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created a new entry for (Stanton Cohn). My gmail address is meeplistener@gmail.com. It was rejected by Dan arnt for "reason undefined." I picked a worthy subject, a scientist with 300 papers who was a pioneer in the study of osteoporosis. Is there a substantive reason that my article was rejected? thanks

10:13:33, 29 January 2019 review of draft by Sejalrajput25


Hello,

Firstly, would like to thank you so much for reviewing an article and sharing the missing elements. I accept the fact that the subject do not show significant coverage. But considering the industry and the market players, they are one of the most searched brands who is been serving since 1986 with their tremendous track record and have become a talk of the town with most trusted companies when it comes to successful real estate projects.

Considering our Hon. Prime Minister's aim to develop Smart City, and considering the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana scheme promoted by our Prime Minister, this company been catering to metro regions of the city and literally making this happen with the several schemes and have won people's trust on this brand.

Having said that, several industries in India especially the real estate industry, in general are very hard to find decent sources for because there's very few sources in the country that could be considered or acceptable. For instance, we have review several competitors as well who are contributing somewhat equally or slightly less than Sugee Group yet have got their page published on Wikipedia with hardly any media mentions under Reference links section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wadhwa_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Housing_Development_Company

As encyclopedia is about the relevant & credible information about the subject, we have tried to cover as much information as possible about the Group with all the required information as compared to very less or no information about the competitors published pages. Believe & trust, Wikipedia do not encourage paid listings as some of the incomplete articles as compared to Sugee Group are live and published successfully. Was wondering, how?

Coming to the point, as I agree the fact that the subject do not show significant coverage, yet here's one such proof that can be shown via Google Reviews wherein it proves credibility: https://www.google.com/search?q=sugee+group#lrd=0x3be7cec0ffb54bb7:0x36d6bbb9403c7f3e,1,,,. Also, they have got a pretty decent Google Search Volume as people are actually looking for. Being an occasional contributor of Wikipedia, would like to start working on several subjects that are in my list which people are actually looking for and not listed on Wikipedia yet. This being a first of many such subjects, would be really helpful if I could be able to figure out the mistakes which will be considered for future articles to make things work out successfully.

Would really appreciate inputs to make my first of many articles a successful one. As I'm feeling like a failure right now :(

Warm regards,


Sejalrajput25 (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=880765629"