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 Khalid2c (talk | contribs) at 12:47, 16 February 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
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


February 10

02:18:27, 10 February 2019 review of submission by Goleuddydd Am Magh Fada

Goleuddydd Am Magh Fada (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC) why did you decline my article meany[reply]

05:32:29, 10 February 2019 review of draft by Sagarshah28


My article is marked as advertisement, I have written this article from a neutral point of view.

I understand as a human there are chances that I might have added few words that seems like adding personal thoughts on the subject. I request you to pin point the areas where I can improve and make this article completely neutral.

Please note that all the information (including the age and name of parents) are taken from the third-party media sources like forbes & Entrepreneur.com.

Sagar Shah 05:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sagarshah28 Welcome to AfC help desk. There not only a few words here and there which makes the article read like and advertisement but you might want to rewrite the article - pls read this three links for more info Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, WP:PROMO and neural point of view. In addition, content claimed needs to be support by independent, reliable sources (pls read WP:IS and WP:RS) where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth, personal thoughts of the subject have NO place in the draft article. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:00:52, 10 February 2019 review of draft by Kakonone3


I do not understand what "Username Needed" means by "Needs things from multiple reliable sources about him personally, not his work."

- There are already included several prominent sources about this composer, including personal information and his work, see references with Ricordi.com and imdb.com among others.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Maintz & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Nemtsov -> where are more / better "things from multiple reliable sources about him personally, not his work." here in these accepted articles? I am not able to find a difference here.

- There already exists an accepted German Wikipedia entry about this composer for several years which is structured the same way and uses the same references / sources. How come that this article was accepted but not this draft here?

- Frankly, I do not know how to further improve on the already updated draft. I hope, that with these remarks the draft finally gets published.

Many thanks for your help.

Kakonone3 (talk) 12:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kakonone3.
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.
  • Ricordi is part of Universal, so it has a vested interest in promoting Wick, who has released on one of Universal's labels. It is not independent.
  • Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it has been in any way "accepted". It is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
  • Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the German Wikipedia but not the English one, or vice versa. Also, as above, the existence of an article doesn't necessarily mean it should exist, it could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet.
The sources that are arms length, reliable, and secondary do not contain much depth about Wick. If he meets any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, ensure the draft makes clear which, and support that statement with the deepest independent, reliable, secondary sources you can find. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:38, 10 February 2019 review of submission by Aalimaslam


Aalimaslam (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:47:05, 10 February 2019 review of draft by Tapir-sc

I am aware, that the nes article should not be am orphan. However, I can not link from other pagers to "my" new page, as this ist not yet existant/published. This looks like a catch 22 to me. Of am I suppoes to link to the new page AFTER it is finally published? Thanks, Tapir-sc (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tapir-sc. You are correct, link it after the draft is accepted. Being an orphan page is not a big or urgent problem. It will have no effect on how the draft is reviewed. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapir-sc (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:22, 10 February 2019 review of draft by 68.103.78.155

The 2019 Conference USA football article needs to be moved into article space because the schedule was released last month. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 Pls add independent, reliable sources to support those content claimed which have no sources. Note: home page, user generated sites, marketing and press releases, interviews and etc are considered NOT independent and / or reliable sources. Sources from major newspapers would considered good sources. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:38, 10 February 2019 review of submission by Jakewildrick


Jakewildrick (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

02:08:14, 11 February 2019 review of submission by FarstinNorwell


FarstinNorwell (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:57:28, 11 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Cimfalab

Hi, thanks for the review. But I can't get how can I improve my draft. I am referencinng the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sider_(Automated_Code_Review) I think my draft is like the above page. Please let me know how to ensure the notability. Cimfalab (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:00, 11 February 2019 review of submission by 122.168.95.13


122.168.95.13 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


04:57:03, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Sewadhamankitgram

Sewadhamankitgram (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:33, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Erikven96

I have submitted a draft for review 7 months ago. Nothing happened. Today I have submitted it again and it got rejected within two hours without any explanation. Can someone please tell me what is wrong? I have been trying to get this entry posted since last June. I must be doing something wrong. Thank you Erikven96 (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erikven96 Hi, I believe the rejected draft is User:Erikven96/sandbox/Tatiana Gelfand. Pls read the comment from the reviewer (click the blue highlighted texts for further information) and read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. For reliable and independent sources - pls go to HERE. If you still have question AFTER you have read the links provided, then come back here and ask specific questions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Erikven96. The way you left your sandbox in July 2018, it was not submitted for review. You can tell by the presence of the bright blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. Had that button been clicked, it would have been replaced by a large yellow "Review waiting" box, usually at the bottom of the draft.
The explanation of why the draft was rejected today can be found in the comment section below the pink box with the stop sign. Creating a new article is much harder and more time consuming than novice editors realize (even if it isn't accidentally left unsubmitted for seven months). If you're interested in improving the encyclopedia, I recommend gaining experience by editing existing article for a while. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CASSIOPEIA:
Thank you for informative and helpful response.
I have corrected those issues, but unfortunately the original editor keeps rejecting my article.
I have read the explanation on the importance of having secondary and independent sources beyond just sites that belong or controlled by the artist, so I have added Imdb (that lists the credits for movie theatrical work) and Amazon (where books to which the artist contributed show credit for her work), also a listing of a scientific research paper that she has co-authored (listed on researchgate.net! with numerous domestic and foreign citations), as sources which are definitely secondary and are independent of me or the artist (I wish they weren't :) ) but still getting kicked back with the same canned explanation as the first one was.
Directorial work is not critiqued or even recognized outside of the mainstream, and the relatively small circle of big name (mostly movie) directors. There are millions of artists who have significant and verifiable body of work, and for whom having a Wikipadia page is crucial in their effort to establish themselves and put out legitimate and searchable summary of their accomplishments. This is what I am trying to help some young and talented artists.
I have put forward everything that is available online of Tatiana Gelfand's extensive body of work, and it seems like it is still not enough for the person who keeps rejecting it even though there are other pages who got accepted with much fewer (as little as three) and questionable references.
Would you have any advice that you could share with me so I can get this article accepted?
Thank you for your help
Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikven96 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Erikven96, General info: First of all, you need to WP:PING the editor who you intended your message is for so they would receive a notification of the message. Secondly, pls add additional " : " (colon) from the previous message prior starting your message for indentation to section communication threads. Lastly,pls sign your post when you finish your message. In addition, pls read the links from the Welcome message I had sent you to understand the guidelines and policies and useful info which would be beneficial to you.
As for the article, if you have read what I had forward you the links, then you would know, IMBD can NOT be used to contribute to the notability of the subject which Wikipedia required. Secondly, Wikipedia is NOT a platform to WP:PROMOTION and lastly, if no sources could be found that talk about the subject in length and in dept then the subject would not merit a page in Wikipedia. Note: Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 00:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CASSIOPEIA:
I was not trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Having a verifiable and independently searchable summary of one's body of work is not in the realm of promotion.
I did read the links you have sent. Possibly not everything since navigating this side of Wikipedia is extremely difficult for someone who is not well versed in the importance and meanings of pings and semicolons and for whom "#FA0" is not a color but a random sequence of characters.
I understood what you are saying and I have to admit that hearing this is extremely disappointing. I imagined Wikipedia to be something more than a celebrity registry, and finding out that notability and merit are measured by how much people talk about a subject and not the actual and factual essence of it, and that lack of that is a more important factor than providing a repository of judgement free online information, is definitely putting Wikipedia in a new light for me. I clearly see now that my intentions and understanding of it were misguided, and my articles indeed do not belong here.
Nevertheless I appreciate you taking the time, and clarifying these matters for me, and I wish you much success for the future.
Erik
Hi Erikven96, Pls do not be disappointed as many new editors did not know the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia and had created draft articles which later were deleted or rejected. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (1) which the subjects of the articles need to pass the notability requirements (2) content need to be supported by independent, reliable sources for (3) verification, (4) Written in neutral point of view, (5) free of copyright infringement and (6) no Original Reseach. Wikipedia is not a repository or directory - see full list of what Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and one of things which most new editors do not aware is Wikipedia content need to support by sources for verification and not the true - see Wikipedia:But it's true!.
I encourage you to start editing existing articles to gain more experience prior attempting to write an article to gain further experience where you would check out Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to help which most of us have started this way. Do pop to my talk page if you need further assistance. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:12:18, 11 February 2019 review of submission by ChrisMacharia

There is a Wikipedia article about Article Video Marketing. I felt that having a definition about article videos can help me write better Wikipedia articles about the concept of Article Video Marketing. Please note that the definition of the term "Article Videos" does not exist anywhere else. So its impossible to have a reference for it. But if we add the entry "Article Videos" and let the community develop the concept, it will help in many ways. It will be the first definition online and will become the basis of what "Article Video Marketing" really means. I am open to suggestions. Please help me here. Thanks. ChrisMacharia (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers topics that are covered by WP:RS reliable sources not topics someone wants to invent/popularize/develop. Ping User:ChrisMacharia Legacypac (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:02, 11 February 2019 review of submission by ChristinFrohne

The article was rejected with the reason of "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", so I read the guidelines for notability on Wikipedia again and I am still convinced that the topic is very relevant according to the guidelines. The article is relying on 16 different sources, which show the relevance of the topic. After the last review, I added two more reliable sources (No. 11 and 14), which have been published during the last few weeks.

I would be grateful for having the article re-reviewed and to get a bit more detailed feedback, if there is still anything to improve.

Thanks very much for your help

ChristinFrohne (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, your draft has been rejected four times by two reviewers (one of which was myself, to disclose), and you received negative feedback at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Re-review_Draft:Eclipse_Theia. All three editors questioned the notability of the topic, and two noted that the article is overly promotional and a likely violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING given you are a disclosed employee of a connected firm. We are approaching the need to cite WP:COITALK, as noted by another editor.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SamHolt6, I really appreciate your feedback to the article. As I said before, I admit that the article was quite bad at the beginning. But I tried to learn from your feedback and always improved the article. Now the article is totally different to the beginning. That why I think, it is not fair to say that the article is not good because I got feedback to improve it. I made changes after every comment. I would also like to point out, that the article is about an open-source software. I have been in touch with other open-source editors and can call myself a member of the free and open-source software task force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force). Maybe that helps the image you have of me.ChristinFrohne (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:41, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Jack Helie


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) 10:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Helie:. This is the third time you've asked this question. Nosebagbear replied comprehensively on 29 January. In case English is not your first language, here is a graphical explanation:
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
play.google.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Brief description by the company or based on its marketing materials
itunes.apple.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Brief description by the company or based on its marketing materials
TrendHunter.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Doesn't have the characteristics of a reliable source, language sounds company-sponsored or based on company's marketing materials
Reuters (x 3) Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN All three pieces are press releases
interestingengineering.com Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Blog posts are often sponsored and self-published sources are generally not reliable
The Next Web Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single-sentence mention in an article about a broader topic
news.am Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN The one paragraph that is not quotes from the company is not significant
www.gov.am Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A first-hand account of a meeting, without interpretation or analysis
Entrepreneur Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Three sentences in an article about a broader topic
armenpress.am Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN A first-hand account of a visit, without interpretation or analysis
Total qualifying sources 0 There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and is not a good excuse to create similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best.
Paid editors are expected to listen to volunteers and respect their time. Continuing to push the draft without radical improvements could result in you being blocked for disruptive-editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time and even providing a graph! My first language is English... I don't know why'd you make such assumptions just because I'm resending a question. And I sent out the same question once again because I hadn't heard from anyone, I hadn't seen the previous reply. But again, thank you for taking your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Helie (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:40, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Teamsgnr123


Teamsgnr123 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


14:46:38, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Micheal September

I'm still learning how to write on wikipedia, it's a bit difficult for me, but I will try to make sure anything further I submit, will be the standard that Wikipedia admin have set. Micheal September (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


15:28:20, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Arazani


Arazani (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected my information with respect to Wikipedia policy, but it is deleted. Please help me in this regard.

You simply don't read what reviewers are telling you. Currently we are considering if we delete the page. A reviewer already rejected the topic. Legacypac (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:41, 11 February 2019 review of draft by Aamirsaahil

Hi, I've removed the non notable sources from the draft and added reliable sources. I have also improved the article. Please review my article. Thanks Aamirsaahil (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is waiting for review. I'll copy your comments to the draft. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:40:44, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Commanderx88121


Commanderx88121 (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


publish this shit nigga

No. Play nice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user earned his promotional page a free trip to MfD so we can delete his self promotion attempt sooner than later. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:07:23, 11 February 2019 review of draft by Grillage 2


Grillage 2 (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have worked with you folks before and have been to a few of your NY meetings. I am working on a book on New York Bridges for the last 26 years and have copied information from your sites of New York's bridges to give the public basic information about each bridge. I have corrected some areas from corrections from engineers that I personally know and from other books from other fellow authors and photographers that I know. Is it okay to publish this info as some of it is word for word but I am very willing to make note that some of the information IS from Wikipedia. Thank you!! Dave Frieder

Not an AfC issue but here goes. Good luck on your book. What is written at Wikipedia is licensed for reuse under a creative commons license. You should review that license with your publisher. If it were me I'd rewrite the material in my own words. Legacypac (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:14, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Hannahpartridgeig


Hannahpartridgeig (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not remotely resemble an encyclopedia page, so I have deleted it. Please don't do that again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:31, 11 February 2019 review of submission by Olasope


Olasope (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC) I have made some changes to the article, particularly regarding copy editing, notability for biographies and additional citations. Please help re-review the article and guide me on how I can make it better.[reply]

User:Olasope I checked your changes and the overall page. I agree with the rejection. You are nowhere near meeting the WP:GNG. I suggest stopping your effort to promote yourself on Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


February 12

01:09:26, 12 February 2019 review of draft by Mmaselli


I respectfully disagree with the reasons behind not publishing the article about William Horrmann and the Horrmann Castle as not only it is a pretty well known Castle on Staten Island. Also, the references provided are all from 3rd party such as the local newspaper or historical archives and not from family blogs, etc.

Mmaselli (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this was a poorly thought out decline. The subject appears to be a notable historical figure. I've commented on the draft and asked another editor to take a look at improvong the page Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmaselli, I agree with the decline (sorry Legacypac). What is the subject? It starts off as a biography of the man, moves on to the brewery business, and ends up with the house. Would you stick {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox company}}, or {{Infobox NRHP}} on the article? You need to decide what the article is about and structure it accordingly. Cabayi (talk) 08:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:13:05, 12 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Grillage 2


Grillage 2 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Hi! I am a bit confused on how to insert the information you requested as this will be a hard cover book. It will NOT be on the internet![reply]

This makes no sense. We can't accept your page on the Brooklyn Bridge Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:38:04, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Nicoledomingo.newscorp

Nicoledomingo.newscorp (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like advertising. May be worth mentioning in the article about the parent company but will not be approved here. Go read WP:COI and comply Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:30:30, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Volker from YAJA

It was the first version of the page. While it has been rejected, it is open to improvement. As the author and co-founder of YAJA I would like to have some input as to how exactly I can improve the content in a way that will suit Wikipedia's guidelines. Volker from YAJA (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Most of the references in your draft are primary sources, which does not add notability to the subject. Please also see your talk page for how to disclose a COI as you are clearly affiliated with the subject (as a co-founder). ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:35:38, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Dyna Dyna


Dyna Dyna (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Both the drafts you started are a single sentence. The one on the singer is an ad for the singer's instagram not an article. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:01, 12 February 2019 review of submission by JulienL92


I'd like the page to be re-reviewed as there have been added a few more notable references, as requested/recommended

JulienL92 (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JulienL92: - hi there, 2 things.
1) It's great if you react to the decline reason and add sources. However all you need to do is re-submit it and it will be re-reviewed. If you think the original review as wrong then ask here.
2) While I was here, however, I took a look at the two sources. Neither is in-depth enough and I don't believe the first is independent - it seems to be coming from the individuals, even though it's within a publication. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:31, 12 February 2019 review of draft by LITERATURASHISPANOAMERICANAS

Hi, I created the page Ana Galdos under the username account, LiteraturaHispanoamericana. I could not login in again (I did not submit an e-mail address the first time) so I created a new account LiteraturasHispanoamericanas. Could you consolidate or move this two accounts into one? Carmela

LITERATURASHISPANOAMERICANAS (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:08:35, 12 February 2019 review of draft by Porcellumripam


Moderator rejected this page on the grounds that "the page reads like an ad". Would be gratefull to have this eleborated on in order to know which paragraphs are causing offense. The key reasoning behind the page is that it is important for the public to easily find clinical trials for cancers, and this in turn means that such wikipedia pages are highly valuable.

Porcellumripam (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:24, 12 February 2019 review of submission by Shamar54

Shamar54 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A blank draft. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:06:31, 12 February 2019 review of draft by NathanPeters406


Hi there, I am writing as I am confused on the notability criteria for my attempted article for Mission Springs Brewery. I used multiple Wikipedia articles as references for this article and made sure I matched the quantity and quality of sourced articles for the Mission Springs article. Please explain why the following articles were accepted and published as they contain the same if not less, quantity and quality, of sources for the Mission Springs Article, I had previously submitted. I do not believe that these pages are any more "notable" than the one I have submitted. If I completely missed something, my sincere apologies, please suggest any recourse that you think would be appropriate for me to improve this article, thus improving Wikipedia. I appreciate your time and suggestions. Thank you very much,

Nathan

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Brewing_Company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Brewing_Company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lighthouse_Brewing_Company - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_49_Brewing_Company

NathanPeters406 (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NathanPeters406: I think the main problem with your draft is with the source material you have used. In general, you should use sources that are as independent as you can find. In the case of Mission Springs, there are two dedicated articles in the Vancouver Sun here and here that could be used. On your draft page, if you click "show" next to the "Editor Resources" panel, there should be a link to "news" - click on that and you should get a list of other news citations like the Vancouver Sun - use those to write your article and resubmit, and it should be accepted. Russell Brewing Company uses such sources. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very popular regional brewery. Legacypac (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

02:58:37, 13 February 2019 review of submission by 216.10.217.201


Because I have published the page , but have no idea if it is live yes or not So that's the reason why I submitted it. 216.10.217.201 (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted twice now as SPAM Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:38, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Your suraj

08:55:38, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Your suraj


{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Please approve my website for god's sake. This is my project work in college. I won't get good grades until I get this approved. I don't have any COI, I have not exaggerated or undermined the subject. Also, I have only re-written what the references I provided, have mentioned. Please re-consider.

Your suraj (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:37, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Heris


This article is about a TV show, whose reference is naturally mainly from its original channel's website. A similar show Car SOS is in the same situation, which has main reference from NGC UK. So, why should this one be rejected?

Heris (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:52, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Silencer17

Hi, really struggling with understanding the notability requirements for this page. The objections have been either that the subject isn't notable or that there aren't sufficient notable sources - and yet the company has been featured at length in numerous respectable sources that are amongst the most important covering the UK tech sector - from Wired (who named us one of Europe's hottest tech companies) to profiles in the Sunday Times, Times, UKTN, Techworld, Computer Weekly, City AM, Evening Standard - etc. These aren't insignificant sources - indeed there aren't really more important ones. In addition, the Market Research Society award cited is one of the most important global awards in the market research field.

From my perspective - and I appreciate I have a conflict of interest that I have declared - Streetbees is generally recognised as one of the most important, well-funded and disruptive start-ups in London, and it's backed by some of Europe's biggest investors, and this is backed up by by numerous independent, credible sources. Which from my perspective means the absence on Wikipedia is confusing. I appreciate there has been a recent crackdown in company pages, but I'd really appreciate someone to take a look at the sourcing and tell me if they still don't think it's credible? Or am I just getting it wrong?

Any advice would be much appreciated. Silencer17 (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:38, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Perfect forever


Perfect forever (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:17:49, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Perfect forever

i think the reason for rejection was wrong!! please rereview it. Perfect forever (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page was so over the top loaded with promotional BS I've sent it for speedy deletion. Post this crap again and I'll have your account blocked. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:17, 13 February 2019 review of submission by BOVAS C SAM


BOVAS C SAM (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Let Me Know the reason why my submission has been rejected so that I can make the corrections on my article. BOVAS C SAM (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an article, it was a shameless and unsalvageable advertisement. Wikipedia is not here to promote your cause, however noble you perceive it to be. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:22, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Jamesmoviemake

I am confused why this submission was declined, please explain what I need to change. Jamesmoviemake (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused too. I've moved it to mainspace after it passed a copyvio check. Everyone involved has an article it seems so the film is somewhat notable. Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:33, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Samimaraahmed


Samimaraahmed (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


17:19:02, 13 February 2019 review of submission by Potatowrite

Hi,

I've been attempting to update this for a while. I've not gotten any direct feedback outside of a request for a newspaper article and someone saying it was about pending events. I'm not sure what they were referencing with the pending events note, as the pedal company has been around for any amount of time.

I'm rather new at this editing and writing work, so any pointers would be great. The company referenced is one of the major players in the guitar pedal industry, but the sources tend to be rather geared to guitar magazines and sources rather than newspaper sources as the company's footprint appears to be minimal in their local base of operations (with pedals made off-site with another manufacturer, unlike many guitar pedal companies).

Best, Potatowrite Potatowrite (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers are just an example of WP:RS. Trade and music industry publications are what I would expect to see for sourcing. Legacypac (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:40, 13 February 2019 review of submission by 63.83.229.146


This is not a resume, but an article about an important figure in software engineering that was pieced together by news articles. The citations make clear the import of this person's work.

63.83.229.146 (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding - the guy created Siri before Apple bought it. I've accepted the page. Legacypac (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:09, 13 February 2019 review of submission by PatriciaHartley

We've been rejected three times, the latest for lack of notability. Can you give us some specific examples of what constitutes notability? We'll do everything we can to provide the requested info. Thanks! PatriciaHartley (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have experience at AfD on a similar CU page with less sourcing and info that was kept. 110,000 owners is notable. I've accepted the page. Legacypac (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:24:43, 13 February 2019 review of draft by Sasannajmi

I would like to upload a picture for the draft page Politicrunch. I am the COPY RIGHT HOLDER as I created the website where the picture comes from. How do I go about uploading the Politicrunch logos? Thanks! Sasannajmi (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


February 14

Request on 01:09:19, 14 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mustardseedvision

I am reaching out wondering why the article on Jamal Smallz was rejected.

Mustardseedvision (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page lacks WP:RS supporting what is written and notability. He needs to pass WP:NMUSIC for a page. That may not be impossible - I've not searched for sources - but right now it does not have the sources. Legacypac (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:51:47, 14 February 2019 review of submission by NickBarker123444431

I would like to know why the article i just wrote about Jack post was rejected, it has lots of information, if its because of the fact there is not enough evidence I'm okay with that, but the only reason why it was rejected was "undefined", and i would just like to know what i can add, or what feedback i can use to make it better NickBarker123444431 (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have rejected that page. I don't know if he is notable. See WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT for guidence Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:42:09, 14 February 2019 review of submission by Your suraj

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Dear SamHolt6, I do not have any conflict of interest for this article. I am doing this article as part of my project in my college. I am studying BCA (Bachelor of Computer Application) 5th semester in Kathmandu, Nepal. And as a part of my project work or assignment, I have to have an article approved in Wikipedia. If it is approved I get good grades at project work. If not, I might get lower grades. Hence, in order to get good grades in my academic result, I need to get this article online. The reason I chose this subject is because I live nearby this organization (about 2 km walking distance). The reason you think that I have conflict of interest for this article is obvious because earlier I tried to write about the Managing Director of this company. That article didn't get approved. Therefore, I changed the subject and wrote about the company itself because I thought writing about living persons and getting it approved is difficult, in fact, very difficult. So, I wrote about the Company itself "City Express Money Transfer". Please believe me that I do not have any COI with the subject I've written. I researched about the article in details via Google. I collected the references also from Google. I am neither paid to write this article nor do I have any connection with the company directly. Please suggest me how I can get this article approved. Please tell me if I should remove some lines. I have neither exaggerated anything or tried to defame the company. I have only re-written what the references have mentioned. Please approve my article.

I have also already discussed this with SamHolt6. He said he'll remove COI issue, however, I needed to add more references. So I did the same.

And Yes! there are two same articles; one is in my sandbox and another is in draft. I have done everything for this article. I do not have COI issues and I have provided more than enough references. Please kindly trust me that this subject of mine is very notable in Nepal. It falls under the top three remittance companies

Please approve my site so that I can secure good grades in my academics. Your suraj (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your suraj, Your choice of sources is poor.
None of the first ten sources you've provided show that the company is in any way notable. You need to provide reliable, verifiable, independent sources which provide significant coverage (not passing mentions) which shows that the business meets the requirements of WP:NCORP.
You claim here that "It falls under the top three remittance companies". Why is that claim not in the draft? Where is the source for it?
The wikipedia community is only concerned with providing a reliable, quality encyclopedia (WP:5P). I'm sorry your grades hang on this task. The best way to succeed is to write an article which meets the wiki's standards. Cabayi (talk) 09:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:43:00, 14 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Alice Taylor 11

Hello,

I am hoping to submit a page regarding the Global Fashion Agenda. I work for Global Fashion Agenda and we own the copyright to the content I have uploaded. My submission has been denied due to copyright infringement, however the content was taken from our own websites, and been altered to make it neutral. It is difficult to rewrite the copy in different words when this is our own messaging in the first place. Please can you advise how I should specifically alter the piece in order for it to be approved?

Many thanks, Alice Alice Taylor 11 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Taylor 11 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:00:47, 14 February 2019 review of submission by Hmdakb


Hmdakb (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:53, 14 February 2019 review of draft by Fairdene


Hi I have had a message which says:

"Procedurally declining until an administrator has revision deleted the copyright violations which I have removed. I have left inline notes where the violatons occurred so the submitter can readd any content, providing it is not a copyright violation, before resubmitting. Please do not resubmit until the copyright violation template has been removed by an administrator."

Sections have been redacted, which is fine but what are the next steps. It says I can't resubmit until the copyright violation template has been removed by an administrator. Is that process automatic and if so, how long does it usually take?

Fairdene (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fairdene, It was removed 6 days ago. However, fixing the copyright violation was a first step, not a final step. There's still lots to fix before resubmitting. The points which leap out at me are...
  • The section at Draft:Ric Lewis#Ric Lewis needs sorting out. It looks like it belongs in a {{Infobox person}}.
  • The draft needs to link to other articles (Wikipedia:Wikilink, MOS:LINKSTYLE). If the article is going to be part of the wiki you need to weave it in to the fabric, not leave it on the sidelines.
  • References should be placed after punctuation, not before.
  • Some peacock language needs fixing, for example "...is a passionate advocate...".
  • The section "Past Board positions include...", why is board capitalised?, wouldn't it look better as either a bullet point list, or better still as a chunk of text, "Lewis has previously served on the boards of London First, International Inspiration, ...".
Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:48, 14 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by G.Reece246


Hi there! Why has my article been rejected? Have you any advice on how to make it work out? G.Reece246 (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read and familiarize yourself with the content policies. See below. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:25, 14 February 2019 review of submission by Hmdakb


Hmdakb (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:56, 14 February 2019 review of submission by Sixday7

Kindly review 2019 PKNP F.C. season page since the season already started and the club is playing in top divison of Malaysian football, Malaysia Super League. Thank you.

Sixday7 (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


18:39:10, 14 February 2019 review of submission by DSTULLOCH

Provided references as requested on January 18. Now asking for a follow up review DSTULLOCH (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:29:58, 14 February 2019 review of submission by Tigresj


This is my grandfather, I created the IMDB profile, any help to add it at wikipedia?

Tigresj (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:49:49, 14 February 2019 review of submission by Irshav


Irshav (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) This is official TENNIS TOURNAMENT. All references are there. Why do you decline it?? I really don't understand.[reply]



Request on 21:16:44, 14 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by AlexBd25

Okay so I started a new version writing "Alex in Pawn Shop Pawns", it's gotten denied two times now, and every time i've retyped it, its gotten worse! So this is my third time, and I worked really hard on it, but i keep making edits to try and not be able to publish it to get an acception, can you teach me how to make it better? Could you please help, i'm trying to ask you politely...


AlexBd25 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:30:42, 14 February 2019 review of draft by AlexBd25

Please consider accepting, this took a really long time to make (a month!) if theres not enough references or you decline it, don't delete it, I'll make edits to it, please...... AlexBd25 (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:09:58, 14 February 2019 review of submission by AlbanyStreetEdinburgh

The reply states there are insufficient references. Was this because reference was made to a book without stating that one whole chapter documents the full biography of this previously unrecorded, and important, life? The existence of this Chinese man has been reported on many occasions in different sources since his biography being published. Should these be listed to strengthen the case for inclusion? The attempt to have this entered in Wiki as a seperate entry is because this is a significant historical discovery and important in the context of mapping Britain's ethnic immigration history.

AlbanyStreetEdinburgh (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 15

00:06:03, 15 February 2019 review of draft by WebservAUS

Hi, We are trying to get a page published about a remarkable man, a private investigator. He has outstanding media coverage and the submission have been declined a couple of times now. I am looking for advice on what we can do to get the page published. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Keith_Schafferius My understanding is that the page does not have enough personal references. My understanding is also the subject does not pass signification coverage to be notable. I appreciate all feedback or advice I can get.

WebservAUS (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:01:01, 15 February 2019 review of submission by 24.84.211.14


We have simply provided some relevant references to the subject.

24.84.211.14 (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24.84.211.14 Hi welcome to AfC help desk. May I know who are "we" you were referring to? CASSIOPEIA(talk) 01:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:11:46, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Fingman

I have added additional independent references to this draft post. I believe that Jack Post is notable enough to warrant having a dedicated article and the article seems to fit within the guidelines. I will continue to work on it if it requires more citation or information. Fingman (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:52, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Himeshlala


Himeshlala (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:35, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Comdeptciel

I would like to know why the draft has not been accepted. How do I add more "significant coverage" about the subject ? I did add several references (internal and external). Thanks in advance for your help. Comdeptciel (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:17, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Yolbotwhit

We believe Martin Creamer is notable as he has significant coverage in multiple popular and reliable publication houses: Engineering News, Mining Weekly, Polity.org.za and SAFM. He is covered by SAFM every week for his chat show At the Coalface He is well known in the B2B industry He is considered to have valued and balanced opini Yolbotwhit (talk) 08:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:11:28, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Yolbotwhit

We believe Martin Creamer is notable as he has significant coverage in multiple popular and reliable publication houses: Engineering News, Mining Weekly, Polity.org.za and SAFM. He is covered by SAFM every week for his chat show At the Coalface He is well known in the B2B industry He is considered to have valued and balanced opinions Yolbotwhit (talk) 08:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:46:45, 15 February 2019 review of submission by NickBarker123444431

This has sought of started a community, and someone has added lots of other reliable secondary sources, I left a message on the help desk, and someone (who i assume reviews articles) said that he wouldn't of rejected the article, but he just didn't know that he was a notable person. the irony is that the Page Cool boys and the frontman(the band that Jack is apart of) is a page. This is Ironic, as people would only have known about the band if they have listened to the Hamish and Andy Radio show, and if they listened to the show, they would definitely know Jack. But Jack also co hosts other radio shows and podcasts in Australia, so his notability in my opinion is enough to deserve a Wikipedia page. I hope you can re-read the article and re-evaulate the article, I believe there is enough secondary sources in the article, to justify the article. NickBarker123444431 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Help for submission

08:49:09, 15 February 2019 review of draft by Juan Santo Domingo

Dear Wikipedia Help desk team,

My name is Juan Santo Domingo, and I am creating a new page for a new technique called Molecular Layer Deposition. The draft is approaching submission, and I would like to know some tips on how to make the article adequate for submission, and what editors look for when moderating articles so that to comply with everything properly. Thank you in advance.

Best regards, Juan Santo Domingo Juan Santo Domingo (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good page. I identified some mild copyright violations that need some rewording then it is good to put in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:01, 15 February 2019 review of draft by Rittushiv


Rittushiv (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why am not able to save mine as draft it shows as error

User:Rittushiv You moved your page twice creating a category by accident. I see why the error. You can't move the page to the correct title because an existing draft is already at the title. We aleady found the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR notability criteria yet. Maybe is she gets another staring role. Legacypac (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:58:34, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Californiahotel 01

Added links from main stream newspapers Californiahotel 01 (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


11:52:43, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Ustadabbaskhan

Why My article submission was declined?

Ustadabbaskhan (talk) 11:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:24, 15 February 2019 review of draft by Medimauro


I submitted a draft for publication prior to being accepted into the "teahouse." it is now "under review." I am new to Wikipedia. Now that I have been accepted, is it possible for me to publish my own article? Or do I still have to wait 7 weeks for review? I have found instructions on how to move a page out of the Sandbox into Wikipedia. DO I now have the authority to do that?

Medimauro (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks pretty good. Lots of refs. As long as you have 4 days and 10 edits you are free to publish. Legacypac (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has been moved to mainspace Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:12:59, 15 February 2019 review of draft by Neha gupta07


Neha gupta07 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link is wrong but no matter. Your creation is totally unequivically SPAM advertising Legacypac (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:52:43, 15 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fiona Armstrong

Hi - I do work for Tutela which I'm trying to work out how to declare on the page but it's unclear?

In terms of additional articles, we also have been talked about in Fortune and The Telegraph - http://fortune.com/2018/07/26/fastest-mobile-network/ ; https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/smart-living/why-you-dont-need-mobile-signal/. I wanted to check if those would help with the notability side of things? I guess I'm trying to understand why we don't meet notability criteria compared to companies like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OmniSci or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedtest.net ?

Fiona Armstrong (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:26:25, 15 February 2019 review of submission by 72.226.4.83


Hello,

I'm requesting a re-review for notable guitarist Daan Kleijn. The last rejection was based on the argument that no reliable secondary sources where provided. I disagree wholeheartedly with this. In my recently changed draft I provided under #5 a source from the biggest newspaper of the netherlands that solely discusses Daan Kleijn's work. Under #1 and #4 lengthy articles from the biggest and most notable Jazz related website, both in length discussing mr. Kleijns work.

I have seen many Wikipedia articles that have far less and less notable references. I would therefore request you to reconsider this draft.

Many Thanks,


72.226.4.83 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


la== 17:02:54, 15 February 2019 review of submission by Daniellesinn ==

I am an employee of the State Representative of Pennsylvania Kristine Howard and am trying to make a Wikipedia page for her. My article was reviewed, rated "Stub-Class" yet a link to Kristine Howard was created. The wiki page reads to the public as "Talk: Kristine Howard" and no information on her is present. I understand that "Stub-Class" means the article is lacking in some sense but I based its format off of other Wikipedia articles for State Representatives. I am new to holding a Wikipedia account and I don't understand what I need to do to make the actual page show up. Since she is someone of importance in this area, I would like to do whatever I can to have her article up and running and get rid of the "Talk" page. Please let me know. Daniellesinn (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I created a Wikipedia page for a State Representative, Kristine Howard. Her page has an "undisclosed paid" template on it now. I believe that has to do with me. I volunteer and am not on a payroll for Rep. Howard; I believe that I disclosed the fact that I had a connection to the page when I started it. What can I do to get rid of this template? Daniellesinn (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stub or any other class is a fairly meanless internal categorization that most readrs never see. Ignore that. I'll check over the page and remove the template. A State Rep is always notable per WP:NPOL Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:04:11, 15 February 2019 review of submission by TrollerTrolledd


I believe this information should be public on Wikipedia since it was formatted exactly how ALL the others artists had theirs formatted on this website.

TrollerTrolledd (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


February 16

00:18:33, 16 February 2019 review of draft by Rcoulter1965


Hello. I'm really trying to do this right without upsetting the editors. I've done Google searches and You Tube video instructions.....I'm still so confused on how to start creating a page. Hoping there is a template or a really great example to follow. I'm an actor in Atlanta....have some projects under my belt, and a website and listed on IMDb. Trying to build my following and having my name searchable in Wikipedia allows my followers to learn more about me. Thank you again!

Rcoulter1965 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI and WP:ENT then go improve some other pages that before you even think of trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own career. Cheers. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:26:09, 16 February 2019 review of submission by Kiranganji

Kiranganji (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion as obvious Advertising. Thanks for bringing the page to our attention. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:47:01, 16 February 2019 review of submission by Khalid2c


KHALID MOHIDDIN (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Sir, I am a beginner creating the article named Bearys Group. Kindly advise me step by step procedure to enable publish my article Bearys Group.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=883603111"