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 Samrt tech (talk | contribs) at 13:44, 28 June 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


June 18

00:00:24, 18 June 2019 review of draft by S923


The text in the article was taken directly from the source, it's the only online source from what would qualify as a reputable publisher.

Can you provide guidance on how to change the text, or do you think it's inappropriate to have an article published at all? AngusWOOF (talk)

S923 (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S923. A single source is almost never enough to establish notability, and thereby justify including an article in the encyclopedia. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Sources need not be online. Perhaps if you revisit the topic in a few months or years, more will have been written about the company that you could use as source material. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Let me do some more research and see if I can find additional sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by S923 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:10:42, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Aızhanzhaisanovaaaa

Good morning I have submitted the Article Rixos President Astana

But you have deleted the article. Would you be so kind to explain me the problem, so that I could change the article. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aızhanzhaisanovaaaa (talk • contribs) 03:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

03:34:10, 18 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B


The article was auto-declined based on not meeting notability in the past but now meets notability... according to policy. Why was it declined without being looked over?

2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2600:6C56:6F08:1CF:0:464:3322:362B, I'm really not sure that it does. I had a look over the sources that have been added since the last deletion discussion, and there's just a lot of recapping his social media activity without any significant coverage of him. For example, if I removed all the references that are just author pages (like this, this and this) and trimmed down the play-by-play of his social media activity, then there's not much left. Nolelover (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:31, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Amolshinde143


Amolshinde143 (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amolshinde143: - there doesn't appear to be anything included to make him notable (in Wikipedia terms). If his source of being notable is as a politician, there are strict rules on inclusion - see politician notability. You also only have 1 source, which is revolvy, which definitely isn't reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:56, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Falconite007


Hi, one of my drafts (V Systems) was reviewed by @Redalert2fan. It was declined, and I'm a bit unsure about the reason. Was it deleted because the source from which I quoted in not genuine, or is it because I copy-pasted directly from the source? If its the latter, can you please give an example (from the draft) where I have copy-pasted directly? I tried to use my own words throughout, but I might have missed out in a couple of instances.

Falconite007 (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Falconite007. Both. The draft contained copyright violations or too close paraphrasing of sources, and cited sources that are not reliable. I've removed the copyright problems as well as the sources that are unreliable and the content that was sourced to them or was unsourced. The topic does not appear to be notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:34, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Sylvia Nescher and Yair Nesher


Please let me know why this page is not accepted....there is no explication and we're still waiting to know. Thanks, best wishes Ifat

Sylvia Nescher and Yair Nesher (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvia Nescher and Yair Nesher: Your draft is still waiting for re-review. The review process is currently very backlogged, so you may have to wait a bit longer. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:50:34, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Pratap.Rohan


Pratap.Rohan (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap.Rohan: Please read the comment on your draft. There are two problems with it. First, you have no citations, which violates Wikipedia's policy on pages about living peopl that requires every statement about living people to be cited to a reliable source. The second problem, which even adding citations cannot fix, is that this person doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR, which describes what actors are eligible to have Wikipedia articles written about them. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:58:10, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Pratap.Rohan


Because i want to make certain changes plus want to put some links Pratap.Rohan (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratap.Rohan: - hi, unless you have some additional major acting roles that weren't included then just adding links won't help. Even a great format won't help you to meet our requirements for actor notability. That could be summarised as significant roles 2+ films or TV series. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:04:50, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Jack-cummins


Jack-cummins (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a page in my wikipedia sandbox so that I can get it published. But whenever I finish editing it and press save changes, only half of it will show up in the edited project. I don't know why but I need all the writing there so that I can get the page published

@Jack-cummins: - hi there. I've fixed it for you - you forgot to close one of your <ref>...</ref> tags. Have fun editing. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:26:28, 18 June 2019 review of submission by 71.198.50.178


Tom Hill is notable for successfully coaching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Sakkari as her career is definitely on the rise.

71.198.50.178 (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most formal guidance on tennis coach notability is Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, which despite the title is an essay rather than a guideline. According to it, Hill would be notable as a coach if Sakkari entered the WTA rankings top-10. Her peak so far has been number 31. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:52, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Makar.91

Hi! I've wanted to publish this article because I wanted, that Betinvest company have Rich snippets in the Google search results and their competitors are already have the same articles on the wiki — EveryMatrix, Sportradar, Playtech and many others. And, as I looked at competitors, I've written information that it doesn't contain an advertising function. If some parts should be edited — please, suggest it

Thanks

Makar.91 (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Makar.91:, unfortunately that's not what wikipedia is for--it's not an advertising platform and doesn't exist to promote one company over the other. Our standard for what "qualifies" for an article is notability, and having third-party sources discussing the subject of the article in some significance. Right now your only two sources are from the company itself--so not third-party, and a listing without any indication of why the company is important. You'll need to add independent sources discussing Betinvest in order to improve the article. Nolelover (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:38, 18 June 2019 review of submission by Jforakei

my submission of article for "dreizehn XIII" has been denied. I really dont understand why, because there're thousands of other underground bands and projects on wikipedia with much less references and biography and yet those articles were accepted. For instance,this band below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masquerade_(Finnish_band)

the explanations given to me aren't convincing at all,sorry.

Jforakei (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jforakei:, please have a look at our policy here which lays out what a band needs to do to become notable enough for an article. The first criteria, being "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician", is what the reviewer says you fail--the sources you've used are not reliable or independent. Articles on blogspot and such are not sufficient. Furthermore, the fact that other similar bands have articles does not really have any influence on this discussion, as your article is judged on its own merits. Nolelover (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:09, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Ortho2017


I think that the title of the draft article should be changed (as per comment received) to

Waqf of Ibshir Mustafa Pasha Complex

How should I do this. Should I delete and start again? Many thanks

Ortho2017 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortho2017: Do not delete and start over. See WP:MOVE for how to move a page to a new name. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:28, 18 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A17E:4AE3:D197:4968

It’s been 2 months since I waited for my article to be submitted but the film releases in Japan in 1 month.

2600:1700:93B0:1350:A17E:4AE3:D197:4968 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A17E:4AE3:D197:4968, your article has been reviewed and declined because there are insufficient reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Please add more of those kinds of sources. Perhaps more sources will publish about the movie closer to release? Nolelover (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:01:44, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Falconite007


Hello, a draft that I had submitted after this one got reviewed. Did I make a mistake in submitting this one, or is no particular order followed while reviewing drafts?

Falconite007 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Falconite007, you made no mistake--all the submissions are put into a large category that reviewers can go through, so there is no order to what is reviewed first. Nolelover (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:02:50, 18 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by 90210grl


Hi. I am writing about my draft article, "N2 Publishing." I received notice that my submission was not approved because "Article has been deleted several times between 2012-2015."

Does that mean there can never be an article on this topic? A lot has changed since 2015, and I think the article and the sources reflect relevant media coverage warranting this article's inclusion.

I would appreciate any feedback so I know how to proceed.

Thank you.90210grl (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


90210grl (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@90210grl: Being deleted before isn't an automatic disqualifier. The editor reviewing the draft probably meant to list that as a comment, not the entire decline reason. The decline reason should've been:

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

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation, 90210grl (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:10:05, 18 June 2019 review of draft by Mizpat


Hello. I am experienced in editing/copyediting and in WordPress website building, but I am new to Wikipedia article creation, so I am using the Visual Editor and I have some questions.

FYI: I am creating this article as a favor for a former professor and friend, Refugio I Rochin, which I have disclosed.

FYI: I posted this query on my Talk page 4 days ago but haven't seen a response.

FYI: I don't really understand the purpose or workings of the Talk page or the User page for my account.

Q1: I clicked the link Submit your draft for review! and I see it in the page called Category: AfC submissions by date/13 June 2019, but the warning box titled "Draft article not currently submitted for review" is still there. How and when does that warning box go away?

Q2: In the References section is a warning message in red: "Check date values in: |date= (help)." I skimmed the Help page but can't tell what's wrong with the date in the reference. It's similar to all other dates in all other references in the list. Can you identify the problem and how to fix it?

Q3: How and where do I find comments/edits/questions by other WP editors on this article? I've signed up for email notifications and the article is on my Watchlist, but is there anywhere else I can check? Will they show up on this Talk page?

Thank you, Mizpat (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mizpat: You need to click the blue box which says "Submit your draft for review!" Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:59, 18 June 2019 review of submission by RyanNewman20


Hi, I apologize for what I'm guessing is a rookie mistake, but could you help me understand what I need to do to get this submission approved? I believe I have read through the common mistakes/auto information/most copied and pasted answers to this, but I need a little help. Please tell me what I should do, thank you in advance. Ryan N

RyanNewman20 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is judged by looking at the depth of coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Your draft has none. Editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage on the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Hi RyanNewman20, your submission was rejected because there doesn't appear to be any indication that this specific metric is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. In general, subjects are notable when there is significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. What you have here looks more like a dictionary entry, or something that is more suited to a wiki about fantasy sports, and note that the sources you have are not independent, since it appears that you, the creator of the term, wrote them. Hope this helps. Nolelover (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

01:34:47, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Darenreif01


SimplePractice (SP) is the leading practice management software for behavioral and mental health providers in the US. They have over 50K users and according to Capterra, an online peer review site, it is the Most Popular Mental Health Software. The company, headquarter in Los Angeles, now has over 100 employees and serves customers in all 50 states. Darenreif01 (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Darenreif01#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:41:16, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Ourworldsmile1


Can you give me a chance to Edit It, and also I was Show the Page that I copy the Biography of Jack Bin Ourworldsmile1 (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ourworldsmile1: You can edit and resubmit, but it is just going to be rejected again unless there are significant advancements in A-K-A Jack Bin's career that allow them to meet the requirements listed at WP:NMUSICIAN. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:54:12, 19 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Grayghostta



Grayghostta (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC) HI,[reply]

I'm GrayghostTA and submitted an article. I don't know what the lead name on my article is Wondering why it was rejected, assuming it was because I have not edited enough?

Be interested in your comments.

Thanks, JRH

Hi Grayghostta, your submission was rejected because there doesn't appear to be any indication that this specific car is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. In general, subjects are notable when there is significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It's often recommended that you shoot for at least three references when writing an article, which you do not currently have. Hope this helps. Nolelover (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:07:28, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Tom.fenwicke120


Tom.fenwicke120 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.fenwicke120: Please read the comment left by User:Whispering on your draft. You seem to have written an "advice" article, which is not what Wikipedia is for (especially when it comes to pages that might be interpreted as medical advice). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:06:47, 19 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Texacomexico


I’m an artist I want to make an autobiography about myself

Texacomexico (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Texacomexico: Creating an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. Thank you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:26, 19 June 2019 review of draft by Rayne Supple


I received a message that this submission was autobiographical. It is not. It is for a professional baseball player. I am his agent. I didn't think such submissions violated your terms as I see a similar entry for 'Griffin Roberts' another professional baseball player. Thank you for you attention to this matter. Rayne Supple (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rayne Supple: The editor that left that notice assumed that it was an autobiography because your username matched the article title. Please see the username policy at Wikipedia:Username policy, which states that you should not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. You can request a username change by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username, but please keep in mind the sections of the Username policy WP:PROMONAME and WP:ISU. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:20:26, 19 June 2019 review of draft by Jarvis crypter


Hello,

as the revision/review of this article takes much longer than expected, I would like to ask if it is possible to do changes to this article while it is being reviewed? requesting for updates that can enhance the article

Appreciate your time! User:Jarvis crypter (talk) 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Jarvis crypter yes, absolutely. You can continue to make any edits and improvements to the article, and the reviewer will review the article at whatever stage it is at. Nolelover (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nolelover could you please review the article and let me know your view of it?

Thanks User:Jarvis crypter

Jarvis crypter, I'm no expert but right now I'd think that you might still need one or two more sources about Informatics. The fact that it operates J-Gate helps, but are there any other sources discussing the importance or the company in that industry? Note that you can use non-english sources as long as they are still reliable and independent. Nolelover (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:15, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Rayne Supple


Thank you for the clarifications regarding submissions for baseball players. Makes sense. I am puzzled by the entry 'Griffin Roberts' american baseball player. None of your requirements are met in this entry. Maybe I missed something.

Rayne Supple (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:32:22, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Lil Young Rapper


Lil Young Rapper (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil Young Rapper: Lanze doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, which describes which musicians get to have articles on Wikipedia. Feel free to resubmit your draft once Lanze's career has advanced to the point that you can demonstrate that they meet those standards using citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:21, 19 June 2019 review of submission by 148.75.165.78

Found and added additional published, reliable, secondary source references that are independent of the subject that shows significant coverage about the subject

148.75.165.78 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:39, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Tomusange


Tomusange (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomusange: Kiirya Beats doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN, which describes which musicians get to have articles on Wikipedia. Feel free to resubmit your draft once their career has advanced to the point that you can demonstrate that they meet those standards using citations to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:22, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Cswendeman

Prosecutor Gramiccioni has been an integral part of New Jersey law enforcement for over 20 years now. He has an impressive resume as a member of the military, the US Attorney's Office in NJ, working with now former Governor Christopher Christie (many of those who have worked with Christie have their own pages, including Chris' wife, Deboroah Gramiccioni) and now, as the head law enforcement official in Monmouth County, one of the largest counties in New Jersey. I have added further details to his page, please reconsider this request to have his page published. There are many pages on Wikipedia with persons who have similar careers and half of the description and or details on their pages. The resources I have used, majority have been written by local or national authors, unaffiliated with the Prosecutor's Office or Gramiccioni. Thank you very much for your consideration. Cswendeman (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Cswendeman#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory Google search shows that C. Swendeman has a very clear conflict of interest even if he is not being paid. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:21:07, 19 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet


How many more secondary sources do I need for this page to be approved? Thanks

Swampcygnet (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swampcygnet: Three. But see my answer to your earlier question. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 20

00:12:59, 20 June 2019 review of submission by 95.92.37.92


95.92.37.92 (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I apologies, I was re-submitting the same thing without realising because I was supplied a google doc with the wikipedia ready formatting but it was badly organised. Is there any chance you could re-review the changes I've made? Thank you and I hope you guys can be a bit understanding with the situation.

@95.92.37.92: - your draft's primary issues weren't formatting, but a need for better sourcing.
You have loads of sources, but an issue with finding ones of sufficient quality for a company. Companies have fairly high notability requirements.
You need sources which are "in-depth, secondary (newspapers, books etc), independent (which rules out interviews) and reliable". Sources which many companies have (share prices, IPO declarations etc aren't suitable - see WP:ORGCRIT for a easy but more in-depth consideration).
Finally, blanketing an article with sources actually slows down consideration of reviews. Put the top 4 sources that meet all of the above on the talk page - it'll massively ease the process. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:11, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

My article about sabari anandhan has reviewed as sufficiently not notable for inclusion on wikipedia. I had clearly mentioned all citations needed for the article and also I had mentioned citations which are externally needed to link with the Subject Brickpa (talk) 05:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brickpa, you have not added independent, reliable sources that actually discuss Anandhan in detail. The Loyola Young Entrepreneur magazine article, for example, might be a good source but you have not linked to it directly. Please add multiple sources of that nature in order to show that the topic is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Nolelover (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:42, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Andreas Overbeck


Andreas Overbeck (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there,

How can all competitors in the collaborative space be listed on Wikipedia (with an objective description) while SquidHub cannot. Here's a list of just a few:

- Redbooth - Wrike - Teamwork.com - Basecamp (company) - Asana (software) - Trello

You'll see a lot of collaborative/project management/productivity companies being listed if you look at e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Project_management_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collaborative_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Groupware

The SquidHub article is written in the same objective and descriptive way as all the other companies listed on Wikipedia. Therefore, we would kindly ask you to review the article again and consider it appropriate for publishing. If you still find it inappropriate, then please let us know what is required before it can be accepted at the same level as all other collaborative platforms currently listed on Wikipedia.

If you need external validation on the platform, you can check some of the articles published by authorative sources like TechRepublic: https://squidhub.com/news

All the best, Andreas

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Andreas Overbeck#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:43:59, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

My article about sabari anandhan has been marked as not notable for inclusion on wikipedia. I had clearly mentioned all citations needed for the article which I wrote and also I had mentioned all required External links for this articles. And help me for further changes need for this article. Thanks... Brickpa (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request for above. Please don't make a duplicate until 48 hours have passed without a reply Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:16:13, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Arunkx

This is the article about the world’s only Astro- Scientist who researched and amassed immense knowledge on astrology and made all his efforts to rectify the mistakes followed in Astrology. People come to him and believes in his predictions. He is a big influencer and works for the betterment of society. Arunkx (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arunkx, none of the sources you have provided are independent and reliable. Please add sources like that which discuss Vashist in significant detail, or else the topic is likely not appropriate for Wikipedia. Nolelover (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, I have edited the article and have provided the source. Could you please review it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 04:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkx, I looked again but it doesn't appear that your new sources are what Wikipedia requires. For example, a newspaper article would be reliable and independent, and would need to discuss Vashist in detail. Most of them are just home pages of things mentioned in the article. None of the links you've added are independent, or even really discuss the subject of the article. For example, linking to the google play store listing for an app is not the same as linking to a independent journalist writing about the app. Does that make sense? Nole (chat·edits) 04:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, that made more sense. Thanks for the advice. I have added and edited the sources which now doesn't point to an application in play store and all. Kindly have a look — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 05:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkx, the first source you added is not reliable--it's a store and blog. The second source does appear to be reliable, since it's from a newspaper, but the article is about the Lal Kitab, not about Vashist, so it does not help you show that he is notable. In your awards sections, your links just go to the pages of the organizations, not webpages that say that the IBB award was given to Vashist. You also added this link which so far is your best source by far, even though it does not discuss Vashist very much. Try to find a couple more sources like this one, where a credible source talks about him and explains why he is important. Nole (chat·edits) 16:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, vashist jyotish sansthan is a place, so I have just edied and added a google search link which points to the place, Lal Kitab is a branch of Astrology and so I think it needs its own explanatory link (sorry if I am wrong, please correct me then). Same goes with the link to Vedic astrology. I wasn't able to connect the other awards with GD Vasisht because they are from either facebook or his blogs, so I removed all others except IBB awards and got a more sensible link for the same. Given my best till now, kindly have a look and approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, I have added a source in external links and gave a new image for his infobox. Hope things are fine now. Kindly go through all my changes and approve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arunkx, it looks like an admin deleted your submission because it still was entirely just promotional material without adequate sourcing. Nole (chat·edits) 21:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, yeah, it seems someone has deleted my content. I wasn't promoting anything but was just writing about a person and his work since his works influenced the mass. However, I am disheartened someone just deleted without even knowing what it is. Anyways, thanks for your time. I'm not going to contribute any more to Wikipedia. Thanks for your reviews. Bye! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunkx (talk • contribs) 08:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:50, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Juanestebanp94

I made a revision of the whole text to made it more clear, also i reviewed the references and literature to make them more usaful. Also I went to their webpage and took the logos of the different products to add them to the section of pruducts to make the article more appealing. Finally i changed and added some data to the infobox. Hope is enough to make it acceptable. I'm making this article because I found that one of the products has a wikipedia article (Aimsun Live) but the rest of them and the developer don't have anything, so I felt kinda confused. If I get this one accepted, I would be happy to make the article for the rest of the products. Thanks. Juanestebanp94 (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Juanestebanp94#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:43, 20 June 2019 review of draft by RomcherChk


RomcherChk (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I'd like to improve my article by providing more (reliable) reference sources. I find it rather difficult, though, as it's a general article about an EU institution. I've provided 2 sources already plus 2 reference web-sites. Any ideas how to improve my article even more? This is my first article, so any tips are much appreciated. Of course, I went through an article on referencing in Wikipedia and some others, but I am still struggling with getting my article approved. Thanks.--RomcherChk (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RomcherChk, right now your problem is that none of your sources are independent--they all come from EU or Ukrainian government websites. Wikipedia requires notability to be shown through third-party reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article, so has the advisory mission been discussed in any news articles or the like? Without those, it will likely be deleted. If none of these sources exist, perhaps some of the content could be put onto a page like Ukraine–European Union relations? Nolelover (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover,Thanks for the explanation. I've inserted a couple of references to online sources other than EU. I'd appreciate if you took a look at them and let me know what you think. P.S. And thanks for the tip with Ukraine - EU relations page! EUAM Ukraine should be mentioned there, too. Thanks!--RomcherChk (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RomcherChk, so for the new sources, the Gazette piece is the kind of thing you want, yes. To a lesser extent, the kyivpost article is a good reference for the part of the article that it is used in, but might not be the strongest source in demonstrating the notability of the EUAM as a whole, if that makes sense. That article is obviously more about Kestutis then it is about the EUAM, and you want your best sources to fully discuss the subject of the article in significant detail. Along those lines, the reliefweb piece only mentions the EUAM in passing. Right now I still think you're right on the line, but if you were able to find another source (usually we say to novice editors that the magic number is three good sources) along the lines of the gazette piece then I would be comfortable accepting the article. If not, you absolutely have enough to write a section for the EU-Ukraine relations article. Nole (chat·edits) 16:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nolelover, I've found some more links that, I believe, qualify for a decent reference. Please let me know what you think. Please also note that there are many more dedicated articles about EUAM Ukraine in Ukrainian (I've included one video footage produced by the Ukrainian service of Deutsche Welle). Appreciate your feedback and please do let me know if I could improve my article even more. Thanks.--RomcherChk (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RomcherChk, you absolutely can add sources in other languages. Obviously the same constraints apply (add Ukrainian news articles, not Ukrainian blogs etc) but you definitely can add those sorts of sources. Google translate and the like have made some level of double-checking online sources very easy. Would you like to add some of those, or pull them up here so I can double check? Nole (chat·edits) 14:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nolelover, I've added many more web-articles in Ukrainian - please see reference list to the article. If you believe this is good enough for the article to be cleared for publication, please let me know, so that I could re-submit it. Thanks for your tips and assistance!--RomcherChk (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RomcherChk, I think you're good to go! Nole (chat·edits) 06:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nolelover, Awesome! Thanks a million!--RomcherChk (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:24, 20 June 2019 review of submission by Manishsinghon


Manishsinghon (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

Ennscloset.com is a leading make up barnd in india. Its been used by so many celebs and notable person in India. Please check the instagram page or Google it. Its an profitable company as well. This is faetured in so many magazines and newspaper as well..Please check the resource part...Kindly publish it... Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Manishsinghon: - Instagram isn't either reliable or a secondary source, and just a high number of google hits doesn't clearly indicate anything. The current issue is that the draft's sources are either from a publication that isn't reliable or isn't independent (the publication or an author has a vested interest in pushing the product - this reasoning also rules out most interviews). There are a couple of exceptions but they don't talk about the company itself for more than a few lines. Companies have higher notability requirements than some other articles, so it needs to be clearly demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:06, 20 June 2019 review of draft by CP842b


CP842b (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to change the name of the article from "G3 Canada" to "G3 Canada Limited" - please advise the best way to do that.

Hi CP842b, please don't do that, it's counter to our standard for company article titles. Such suffixes are only used to resolve conflicting titles, and only rarely at that. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:50:42, 20 June 2019 review of draft by Michaelparkerrealkast


I have edited the draft per instructions by Robert McClendon. However this is my first time to create a wiki page and I am not sure if the draft has been resubmitted correctly with new edits. Is there a way I can find out that new edits and draft are submitted?

Thank you.

Michaelparkerrealkast (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michaelparkerrealkast. The large yellow box at the top of the draft tells us that the draft has been resubmitted and is in the pool to be reviewed. With the current backlog you can expect to hear back within about four months. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:58:31, 20 June 2019 review of submission by 61.28.135.180

I wanna make a wikipedia for my starting youtube channel about vlogging 61.28.135.180 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@61.28.135.180: - Wikipedia doesn't exist to help market you, nor does it talk about "up and coming" ideas, products or shows - as an encyclopedia it summarises topics already covered in secondary topics. If your youtube video takes off, media covers it and someone else decides to write about it, that's fantastic, but otherwise it's not suitable I'm afraid. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


June 21

01:39:52, 21 June 2019 review of submission by EagerBeaverPJ

Hi, so I started a draft about an ongoing major news event, the 2019 Chennai water crisis, but on my draft page there is a notice that says my draft may take 8 weeks or more to be accepted since there are more than 4000 drafts waiting for review. So if it is not reviewed fast enough can I just go ahead and create a page directly for it at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Chennai_water_crisis&action=edit&redlink=1 since this event is ongoing and an article for it needs to be published quickly? Thanks, EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EagerBeaverPJ, greetings. An article created via AfC or newpage, will subject to be reviewed before it is in mainspace of Wikipedia if it is accepted. Your draft page is declined at the moment and if the subject has further development beside on June 19, then readd info and sources to resubmit, but as of now it is WP:BREAKING and need to be WP:LASTING. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: Wait so are you telling me that if I add more information to my draft article then you'll accept it? I could do that, but I believed that since there are other editors working on pages too I didn't need to write the whole thing myself... And even the Wikipedia:Article development page says that most articles start off as stubs that eventually grow into long articles with time, so you could still publish it now and then I could work with other editors also interested in the topic to help it grow. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EagerBeaverPJ, Greetings. What I am saying is that the water crisis need to provide further development on how this " "Day Zero" came about and more importantly, how does it effect the society/ppl after Chennai city officials declared that "Day Zero". If you could find that then add them in and resubmit. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:46, 21 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

As the last reviewer of my article on sabari anadhan said me to update the exact link to Loyola college young entrepreneur magazine but the site is out of scope under its reconstruction. And I Wish my article to be uploaded soon on Wikipedia and soon after the site reconstruction,I will provide the exact link to the magazine. Thanks.

Brickpa (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last reviewer actually said that the topic is not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:45, 21 June 2019 review of submission by Sobrien22


Hi! How do you make the page to set up "Life, career, etc"

Sobrien22 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sobrien22: Put each heading on a new line, surrounded by two equals signs on each side (e.g. == Life ==, == Career ==, etc). See Help:Section for more info. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:36:54, 21 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Belarus5566


I have updated a post. Thanks

Belarus5566 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Belarus5566, right now you do not have any sources in your article. You need multiple independent, reliable sources (like books or newspaper articles) that discuss Sahil in order for your submission to be accepted. Note that the page you linked to on az.wikipedia.org also does not have any sources. Nole (chat·edits) 16:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:03, 21 June 2019 review of draft by 63.139.228.146


I submitted a draft for a new page titled RED MUSIC which is a newly created record label as of 2017. The submission was declined by AngusWOOF, citing that there's already a page for RED MUSIC at RED Distribution, and that I should make edits to the RED Distribution wiki. Unfortunately, this is incorrect. RED Distribution and RED MUSIC are two different business units and serve separate business purposes. Additionally, RED Distribution is no longer an active entity. Is it possible for me to reverse this declined post? 63.139.228.146 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

63.139.228.146 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:06, 21 June 2019 review of draft by Nealuigi


Nealuigi (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am following up to see if someone can help me to identify which specific sources are deemed unreliable in my new article submission. Thank you in advance!

Hi Nealuigi, after looking at your submission I would note that youtube videos, podcasts, and blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources (since effectively anyone can publish them and there is no quality control or editing process). Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, articles or videos published by Bet-David do not have nearly the weight that articles or videos published about Bet-David would have. So article helps demonstrate notability wayyyy more than all of the links to things that Bet-David has done, but which are published by his own company. Does that help? Nole (chat·edits) 21:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is very helpful, thank you! Nolelover

21:53:14, 21 June 2019 review of draft by Dr. Andrew Fox


I am fairly new to Wikipedia. My client, Andrew Fox, travels all over the world and speaks in various places. He's published books and articles, along with some news coverage.

Do we just need to use a different template?

Let me know how we can still utilize Wiki here, but stay within the guidelines. The language and direction is new to me. Many Thanks Matt Garner

Dr. Andrew Fox (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending Username change and paid editing disclosure. You must not use names of other people as your username. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:29:33, 21 June 2019 review of submission by 80.192.177.106

My page was moved by unknown source it was a regular feature on Wikipedia 80.192.177.106 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


22:29:33, 21 June 2019 review of submission by 80.192.177.106


I wish my page to be restored please 80.192.177.106 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 22

03:34:56, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Usernae31


How is the Topic not insufficient?

Usernae31 (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usernae31, in order to show that a person is notable, wikipedia requires you to include multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss the topic. For example, books or newspaper articles would be good examples of reliable sources. Right now you do not have any of those kinds of sources, as Mustafa's website and something he has written are not independent or written by a third-party. Nole (chat·edits) 04:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:07, 22 June 2019 review of draft by Mermantiun


My company works as an rescued wildlife center since 2014 in Vietnam, also have certification at the gorvenment http://www.thongtincongty.com/company/4bcade0d-cong-ty-tnhh-tiun/

and i also put information on my youtube. You can go there and check all information are real But this is my first time, to put information to wikipedia, So I'm not sure what more information you need

I play wikipedia to help people know more about my projects. Please help me finished this page.


Mermantiun (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mermantiun. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Unlike sites such as Facebook or YouTube, it is not a place to spread the word about yourself or your projects. You might wish to start a blog instead. --Worldbruce (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:20:09, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Jainritesh94


Jainritesh94 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Hi I was wondering why my article got declined?[reply]

Hi @Jainritesh94: The article reads like an advertisement. It reads more like an official profile created by the company, instead of an encyclopedia entry. Everything on Wikipedia should be written in an encyclopedic tone and convey information from reliable, independent sources. Right now I see that all the references in the article are from TorchIt itself; without independent sources, the article will not be acceptable for Wikipedia. I recommend taking a look at our guide to your first article as well as our notability guidelines. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:46:58, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Mariferchis


I am requesting a re-review since I have submitted a new version of the document following the advise provided on forums.

Best regards,

Fernanda

Mariferchis (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mariferchis. Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. The only source cited by the draft that mentions the term is the artist's website. If the artist is notable, you could write a biography of them and mention the technique in a paragraph of it, but if they are the only person using or talking about the technique, Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article about it. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:11:01, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Brickpa

As per the reviewer advice I had included Sabari Anandhan's certification of Ethical Hacker, also the year he got. I Wish this would help my article on the subject to be notable and included on Wikipedia. Thanks. Brickpa (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brickpa. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable, so no amount of editing will make the draft publishable. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:39, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Silent to the mouth

I'm trying to make a wikipedia for this artist Silent_to_the_mouth Silent to the mouth (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia can't accept texts copied from elsewhere without written permission by the creator. See your user talk page for more information. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:30, 22 June 2019 review of draft by Hjlresearcher16


Hjlresearcher16 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki Help,

Question: What is the best way to communicate with other Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia? For instance, if I am creating an article that is the subject of an inactive link in a published article and want to contact the editor of the published article how would I do so? Being able to confer with other creators/editors would save time an effort with regards to revising future articles. I am sure there must be a way to do so without resorting to personal emails.

Sincerely,

Hjlresearcher16

@Hjlresearcher16: - so a couple of options are probably best here:
1) Talk Pages - go to the talk page of the current article and ask about it there. The article's creator and major contributors will generally have it watchlisted so will see any comments
2) User Talk Pages - If you click the "View History" of the current article, you can see who has edited it, and thus who made the larger edits. If you click the "talk" next to their name you'll go their talk page and you can raise the topic there. If you have individuals who you'd rather speak to, this might be the way to do it. If you want opinions from several people it might be too much work.
n.b. - "Pinging" - If you aren't messaging on their user talk page, then the best way to get their attention is to "ping" them. That, in fact, is what I did at the beginning of my message. The full thing is explained at Template:Ping, but the summary is: type {{ping|Target's Username}} - e.g. {{ping|Nosebagbear}}. You must sign with ~~~~ at the end of your message or pinging won't work. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:37:05, 22 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by BritKester


Hello, I attempted to create a page for the University of Florida's Education Library. I just received a notice that the entry was rejected. One reason that was listed was: Individual branch libraries of this sort without buildings of their own are not generally notable. However, we do have our own building it is just housed within the UF College of Education Norman Hall complex. The University of Florida Architecture and Fine Art branch library has its own page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida_Architecture_and_Fine_Arts_Library) and the Education Library is very similar to this branch. I would like to link to digital collection created by the Education Library and other external links but I ran out of time when creating the page. I am hoping that the decision to reject the University of Florida's Education Library page will be reconsidered. Please let me know if you need more information or if there are any questions for me. Thank you. BritKester (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection is meant to be final, however I know cases where rejection wasn't the end of the story. Sine you use "we" above, I would ask you to read WP:COI and WP:PAID. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:55:42, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Rohanwithlove07


Rohanwithlove07 (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything we can do, the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:00, 22 June 2019 review of submission by Texacomexico


Texacomexico (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:08:13, 22 June 2019 review of draft by JEParsons787


I will be seeking additional, public sources over the next several months, and will not be re-submitting the article until I have them. Is it possible to leave the article in my sandbox until then? I do not want my work to be deleted in the interim.

Second question: Other than the supporting citation issues, was the article itself sufficiently neutral?

JEParsons787 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, drafts and AFC submissions that haven't been edited by a human in 6 months may be deleted (see WP:G13). As long as you're making at least one edit every six months the draft will be fine. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

02:27:18, 23 June 2019 review of draft by TrimmerinWiki


This is my second rejection for the Draft article, Caloola Club. The first was for the given reason that the article was about 'a run of the mill local organisation'. So, I added more material, which I think demonstrates that was not the case, and resubmitted it then with twenty-two references. Now, it has been rejected again based on the sourcing not being verifiable. This is not the first article I have written for Wikipedia, but it is my first 'second rejection'. I am comparing the Caloola Club Draft with some other articles (The Bush Club, Sydney Bush Walkers Club) on similar topics, which have made it past draft, and I really don't understand what more I need to do. Although I did not intend to expand this article, beyond what is there now, I am willing to do more work, if needed. I would really appreciate some guidance. For example, is it because the 22 references in the article are not verifiable - most are on-line - or are more citations needed? Are there some particular examples that you can give me? Note that I do want to meet Wikipedia's standards, and I don't want to argue about this second rejection; I am accepting that there is a valid reason for this second rejection. Also, take it as a given that I have read the link on reliable sourcing. I am just unsure of what is necessary to move the article forward, without some concrete examples of where I am astray. Also, I am unsure on how I avoid a 'third rejection' due to some other as yet unidentified issue. In previous rejection situations, I was given very clear guidance on the problem and was able to fix it for the next (successful) resubmission. What has happened this time, leaves me full of doubt. Thanks. TrimmerinWiki PS: I have asked a somewhat similar question of the reviewer on his Talk page, but perhaps that was not the correct thing to do.

TrimmerinWiki (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TrimmerinWiki. When seeking clarification of a specific review, it's best to start on the reviewer's talk page. If they don't respond or don't give a satisfactory explanation, then ask in a broader forum such as this.
You describe The Bush Club and Sydney Bush Walkers Club as articles "which have made it past draft", but neither was ever a draft. They were created directly in article space. The first was deleted in May 2017, promptly recreated, and just as promptly tagged for notability (which is often the first step on the road to another deletion). The fact that they exist could just mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. It usually isn't productive to compare a draft to an article, unless you use an example article that has gone through a formal process, such as Articles for creation, Articles for deletion, or good or featured article review. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:28:57, 23 June 2019 review of draft by Ansif


British Herald is a media company and would request you to review the draft as early as possible. It will really have influence and impact on our credibility.

Ansif (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the draft (which is promotion of a non-notable online service) is almost certainly eligible for G5 deletion - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amvivek. --bonadea contributions talk 07:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:51, 23 June 2019 review of submission by EmmyDread


Good Day am trying to create a profile article for a website call theawardnews.com blog so it can be widely known by all in the world and as many time i try creating it over and over its rejected by one of your team staff i would like to know the reason behind the rejection or decline of the article post EmmyDread (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EmmyDread: Since Wikipedia is not a directory or a place to promote (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:PROMOTION), articles can only exist if they have achieved a certain level of notability (WP:NOTABILITY). To demonstrate notability, third party independent reliable sources (WP:RS) that show significant coverage about it should be cited (WP:CITE). I hope this helps, —PaleoNeonate – 15:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:18:12, 23 June 2019 review of submission by Samwbc

Good day, please I am asking for a review show that I can know if my articles meets with the requirements of wikipedia for approval. And also, so that the team can help me with suggestions on what I need to do if the article is not good enough to meet with the requirements.

Thank you!

Samwbc (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Samwbc. Rejection is intended to be final, to convey that the subject is not notable, so that no amount of editing will make the draft approvable. See Wikipedia:A primer for newcomers#Picking a topic, particularly the "Pick something notable" subsection. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

04:06:32, 24 June 2019 review of submission by NJDevil1

Hello! I'm wondering why my submission, a list of regional beverages of the United States, was rejected. There is a Wikipedia page for "List_of_regional_dishes_of_the_United_States" but there is nothing for beverages, and I don't see the difference between the two (besides one being a solid and the other a liquid). As an example, Manhattan Special is virtually unheard of outside of the New York City area, while most New Yorkers have never seen NuGrape or Big Red. Why shouldn't Wikipedia make it easy to find regional beverages? NJDevil1 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NJDevil1, I suspect it's the lack of sources. All of the list items already have an article (or a section of an article, in the case of the gin fizz) so I've gone through and added a citation to each of the list items. --valereee (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:50:51, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Mirkyton


I'm confused by the submission process and don't seem to be able to submit my draft for review. I just keep ending up back at the grey draft box without the "submission-received" box appearing.

Mirkyton (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirkyton: I've fixed it. You had a broken HTML Comment which caused the yellow box to be hidden. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:25:41, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Kenny12021202


PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY MY Article is rejected? Kenny12021202 (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kenny12021202. Most businesses, including this one, are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:41:07, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Unknownunknownunkown


Unknownunknownunkown (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:50, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Kevinbade


Kevinbade (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I have two questions regarding the Ken Davis Music page I have worked on. 1) There is no conflict. Ken has engaged me to help with writing the page because of my background in online application development and have known Ken since the mid 1980s. There is no conflict of interest. how can that be fixed? 2) The page was rejected because the topic wan't notable enough for Wikipedia. Why is that. Please help. Thanks, Regards Kevin

If Ken has engaged you to help with writing the article then you have a VERY clear conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kevinbade,
  1. Your description of your relationship to Ken Davis is a clear match to the description of a conflict of interest as described in the message on your talk page. It's a commonplace of COI that the writers are unable to see just how (non-)notable their subject is and unable to see how their relationship taints their objectivity and judgement. You fit the model to a T. How can that be fixed? - I don't know, but I suspect that if you fix the COI you'll no longer be interested in writing about him.
    COI often leads to the author uploading copyright material from the subject's website because they assume permission, and hey, look, there it is... https://i0.wp.com/kendavismusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ken_profile_home_2.jpg uploaded to c:File:KenDavis1.jpg. On wiki you claim it's your work, there it's claimed by "KEN DAVIS MUSIC" - a bit of a discrepancy there.
  2. The rejection note linked to the guidelines for notability. WP:MUSICBIO is a more specific set of guidelines for musicians. Cabayi (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:03:19, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Osguhisar

A beginner on wikipedia, am working for Om Sterling Global University and we wish to have our page/article on Wikipedia. Please suggest the changes or edits. Osguhisar (talk) 09:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:21:44, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Nikatomka


Hello, my article has been rejected for publication. I am new in Wikipedia publishing and I did not get the comment about the references I should improve. I included reliable scientific publications which can be found on Pubmed. Could you please give me more detailed feedback? It would be really helpful. Thanks!

Nikatomka (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

It seems OK now and I have just accepted it. And you are correct that lack of references was not the initial problem, but rather that at the time it was not formatted as a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 12:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:38:26, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Revival1991


I am confused about creating the page and submitting them for review. Revival1991 (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Revival1991. You were given a slew of links in the welcome package on your talk page that may clear up your confusion. Wikipedia:Your first article contains extensive how-to information on the subject. Editors are rarely successful at creating new pages until they've learned to edit existing pages constructively. See Wikipedia:Community portal for ways to start helping out. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:55, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Osguhisar

Need help in editing the page. Osguhisar (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Osguhisar: Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising your institution. Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:40:19, 24 June 2019 review of submission by 62.248.208.95


Do you think this is constructive?

62.248.208.95 (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:53:07, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Sophea M. Lay


Please kindly help review our article again. Could you please allow us to submit it again because the previous submission was clicked the wrong function. Thank you very much.

Sophea M. Lay (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


12:05:17, 24 June 2019 review of submission by Seema Chari

I am trying to create a digital presence for me and my firm. and only publishing true data. i do not want to publicize or market myself on the platform. i just want to put the correct data online. Seema Chari 12:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seema Chari. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a business directory or a place to write about yourself. Using it to "create a digital presence for me and my firm" is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and will not be tolerated. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:25:10, 24 June 2019 review of draft by 41.115.20.224


41.115.20.224 (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@41.115.20.224: You've not re-submitted the draft for review. I would say that currently this person doesn't meet the WP:NPROF criteria, or the General Notability Guideline. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:20:37, 24 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by JaneStroup


I work as an occasional editor for John C. Goodman. He asked me to post information about the Goodman Institute because there is no entry for his organization at present and he is not an editor. Was the entry rejected because I am modestly paid for working with Mr. Goodman? Or because of the content of the entry? I would be happy to modify the content or find someone else to post it if one of those is necessary. The Goodman Institute is a viable and important organization that should have its own entry. Jane Stroup.


JaneStroup (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JaneStroup. The draft was rejected because the organization is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Things written by John C. Goodman or published by the Goodman Institute can't demonstrate the notability of the institute. Reliable secondary sources independent of the institute and containing significant coverage of it (not, for example, simply quoting it) could show notability, and are the kind of sources that the bulk of the draft would have to be based on. In the reviewer's judgement, no such sources exist, and based on my own searches, I concur. Therefore no amount of editing can make the topic acceptable. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:28, 24 June 2019 review of submission by TrasaccoGH

Hello. Thank you again to the editor who took the time to review my article and shared tips on editing. I have revised the article to further comply with the Wikipedia guidelines and would appreciate a re-review for submission. TrasaccoGH (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the initial review was legitimate, I've resubmitted for a 2nd review. The reject reason no longer stands, but I've not checked for notability etc Nosebagbear (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:44, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Wordcobbler


Wordcobbler (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I am confused. On 12 April 2019, Clarityfiend said that “he does satisfy WP:AUTHOR. I’ve found multiple reviews of several of his books. Incorporate those and the article will be accepted.” On 17 April 2019, Lopifalko said that “You need to find some independent reliable sources focusing on Harriss himself.” I then added voluminous quotations from independent reliable sources commenting on my four books. Sources like The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and The Los Angeles Times, among others. This should have satisfied both commentators. Clarityfiend, who was sympathetic to the article, has since disappeared, leaving only Lopifalko, who persists in being critical but is unclear in describing exactly what else, beyond the additions I have made, is required. The two editors appear to be contradicting each other and making conflicting demands. Furthermore, the decision on whether my journalism has been significant is entirely subjective. I believe the quotations I cite demonstrate that much of my work has had impact. I see many other journalists who have WP pages who have done less than I have, and whose entries are frankly skimpy, but who have been accepted. Readers often like to know more about the authors whose articles and books they enjoy. I see this page as a service to them. I should have thought that WP editors would agree.Wordcobbler (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordcobbler: Reading your draft through a fresh set of eyes, I am not convinced that you meet the WP:AUTHOR notability requirements. You need to add references that show that other publications have written about you. If you're the kind of author that should have an article about them in an encyclopedia then that will be easy to achieve. You've not provided sources for the various critiques of your books, so I presume they're from the dust-cover, where anything is bound to be highly promotional. Who has independently written about your life, and your contributions to journalism? John Barron is included in Wikipedia as recipient of a notable award (George Polk Award). Have you won such awards? If so, please state which. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:11, 24 June 2019 review of draft by McDaire


Hi, My article about a tabletop RPG was declined citing not enough references from independent sources. However, I did cite multiple references from independent news sites and I have seen other comparable games with less references approved (e.g. Blades in the Dark). I have written to the reviewer but received no reply yet. How should I proceed?

McDaire (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi McDaire. 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. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. 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.
The One Shot Podcast is a self-published source, so don't cite it as a reference. The ENnie Awards and Geek & Sundry are reliable sources. That gives you two of the recommended minimum of three (multiple articles from the same outlet usually count as a single source). If the game is notable, you shouldn't have any trouble finding at least one additional independent, reliable, secondary source that contains significant coverage of the game.
The bulk of any draft should come from independent sources. Right now the only part of the draft based on such sources is the "Reception" section. So the next problem is that the rest of the draft needs to be radically slashed. Keep anything the independent sources can support, but not much more. For any non-independent material you keep, identify the source - page n of the rule book, page x on company website, back of game box, etc. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Worldbruce, this is super helpful and actionable. I'll edit the article and resubmit. --McDaire (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:01, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Allisonm519


I am in need of some help with adding references to my article. I don't know how to correctly add references so that the Reflist has the correct reference format for websites.

Allisonm519 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allisonm519. There isn't much guidance better than WP:REFB, to which you've already been directed. As an example, I've added to Draft:Dan Hocoy an inline citation to a website you plagiarized. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:37:45, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Martingraybensonjr


Martingraybensonjr (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am unsure why my article is not currently submitted for review. Does this mean it was never read, or has been read and already declined? What do I need to do to publish, or to know what changes need to be made.

Thank you.

You need to click the blue button that says "Submit" but before you do that you need to find independent reliable sources, your draft has none and will not be accepted as it is. Theroadislong (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:57, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Eveerdonk


Dear reviewer,

Last week the Wikipedia page I submitted on Mike Massé was declined, because it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I would like to edit the page and resubmit it, but before I do so, I would like to make sure that I understand what needs to be changed in order for the page to be accepted.

Has the page been declined because references to unreliable sources (IMDb and Ovation guitars) are included? Or is there any information that requires a source that is lacking right now? Or is it a combination of the two?

Thank you in advance.

Kind regards

Eveerdonk (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eveerdonk. The problem is a combination of things. A number of the cited sources are not reliable, and should not be used as references:
  • IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source.
  • The Daily Mail is not a reliable source per WP:DAILYMAIL.
  • Boing Boing is a group blog, so not a reliable source.
A number of the cited sources (Twitter, Facebook, Huffington Post, and Dumpert), are poorly thought of on Wikipedia. They may be reliable for the content they support, but they generally don't help establish notability and may distract reviewers from any better sources in the draft. Seriously reconsider whether the content they support is encyclopedia-worthy. The draft may be improved by leaving it out.
The body text of the draft contains a number of external links, ones that take the reader away from Wikipedia. That is not allowed. Convert them into references if applicable, remove them, or move them to an external links section at the bottom.
Large parts of the draft cite no sources (the entire "Early life" section, and several paragraphs of the "Career" and "Personal life" sections, for example). If you can't cite a reliable published source for the content, remove it. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:14, 24 June 2019 review of draft by Tmgmt


Tmgmt (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmgmt, your submission was declined because it did not have any reliable sources in which Graves is discussed in significant detail. Nole (chat·edits) 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building my SEO and music profile. That information provided is acurate. Tmgmt (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmgmt, on Wikipedia we require all information to be verifiable. This means that just because something is accurate doesn't mean it automatically gets to stay on the site. You must add sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic, and the sources must be come from reliable organizations, like newspapers or books. Nole (chat·edits) 22:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Princess Graves and my information and criminal history can be found inside of public records. I have made a Wiki pedia in hopes of building my music profile and SEO my label links have been shared in the entire Wiki page profile. I need to start somewhere. The music is going to be released in 10 days.

This is my label and Teamwork management abbreviated TMGMT. Tmgmt (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmgmt, please see the message that Huon left on your talk page. Wikipedia is not a space for building a music profile. Nole (chat·edits) 23:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


June 25

00:02:41, 25 June 2019 review of submission by EmilLattelife


I have done a few more citation and references, what more do i need for this article to be approved?

EmilLattelife (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmilLattelife. The draft cites exactly one source, which hardly says anything about King, and fails to verify the statement for which it is cited. It says "King ... claimed to have been interested in purchasing the regional assets from Nine for around $92m ... It is not clear how King, the 24-year-old publisher of Latte Life, would have funded his proposal." This significantly differs from the draft text, "Cristian King formed a consortium bid of $92.4mil for the Australian Community Media ..." Claiming to be interested is a long way from forming a consortium bid.
Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. Based on my own searches, I concur with the reviewer that no such sources exist, so no amount of editing will make the draft approvable. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:14:37, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by AmericanLegalNet


American LegalNet, Inc. is a company located in Encino, CA. We are trying to make a company Wikipedia page. 00:14:37, 25 June 2019 review of submission by AmericanLegalNet

AmericanLegalNet (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmericanLegalNet. Most businesses are not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Searching for independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of American Legal Net found only: The Internet Guide for California Lawyers. Continuing Education of the Bar--California. 2001. pp. 116, 129. ISBN 978-0-7626-0585-9. That isn't nearly enough to justify an encyclopedia article. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

06:58:41, 25 June 2019 review of submission by EmilLattelife


My submission of this article have been rejected. Im totally green on wikipedia and this is my first article. Im doing this article for my employer (Im a personal assistant) and for what i can see the reason for rejection is possible COI? How do i prove there is no COI and how do i move on with this article? All information in this article have been handed to me and i am just trying to set up the page.

Hope you can help me out here

EmilLattelife (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EmilLattelife, your submission was rejected because it does not contain enough sources, either to verify the material in the article or to prove that King is notable enough to justify having an article in the first place. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, Facebook or a business directory, and the person who gave you this assignment seems to be under a bit of a misapprehension about what Wikipedia is for. In order for a person to be notable enough for an article, multiple independent, reliable sources (newspapers, books, etc) must have written significantly about them (not in passing as the one source you've included does). As of now, the submission does not meet our guidelines. Nole (chat·edits) 07:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:30:20, 25 June 2019 review of submission by AdrianWikiEditor


COPYVIO! https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/belle-delphine/

Plus lots of unreliable sources. Lots of publicity lately so notably might be ok. Might want to delete and start again. I'd rather create a stub with the barely notable sources then get the page taken down for copyright later.

I did not write this article so please inform them about it,

AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:14, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Nadun welivitigoda


Untitled

How about now? Draft:Belle_Delphine AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since she didn't have significant enough coverage back on the first of June, she does have enough so can we get a redirect to Belle Delphine. I wrote a new and improved version.AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:01:46, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ferdig75


can I know why the article was rejected?

Ferdig75 (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ferdig75. See the reviewer's comment below the stack of large pink boxes at the top of the draft. Super Yacht Times appears to be a trade publication. Such sources often have a too-cozy relationship with the companies in their target industry, so they do not count towards establishing notability. Replace that source with a third one like the articles in the further reading section from La Stampa and Corriere della Sera. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:07:29, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Fans of samrat


I've given reference of News Article published on my name. Twitter and IMDB are external links. Hope to prove my self an actor and my work in that film, one News Article is enough. Get that published.

Fans of samrat (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fans of samrat. The actor is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). That may change as his career progresses, but it is currently WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:52, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Soprano2019


Hi, I added some information what the company offers, company's industry and more valid references for example from Nasdaq.

Soprano2019 (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soprano2019. Stock quote pages such as the Nasdaq Helsinki don't help establish notability. You need significant coverage in, for example, independent press and analyst reports. The bulk of the article should come from such sources, not from the company (not their website or press releases).
Find at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage and rewrite the draft from scratch using mainly them. A starting point might be this article in Helsingin Sanomat. It is paywalled, so I don't know if it contains enough independent secondary coverage to count as one of the three. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:36:51, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by MattMatt73


I submitted and article on the Wellspring Community in Peckham. I accept that it was not to the standards of the Wikipedia, but can I have the original copy that I submitted, so I can correct these errors?

Cheers,

MattMatt73

MattMatt73 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MattMatt73. User:MattMatt73/sandbox/The Wellspring Community Peckham was deleted for infringing copyright, so no, it will not be restored. If you still want to write about the subject you'll need to start from scratch. Start by identifying three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the organization. If you can't find such sources, the topic is a non-starter. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:14, 25 June 2019 review of draft by Cjgoff


The reviewer on my last submission included the following note: "On a related note, I see you've got a copy of this in User:Cjgoff/sandbox. We prefer that you don't keep multiple copies of the same article, it just leads to confusion." I understood the sandbox was where the work-in-process for the prospective article was to be stored. If not, what is the sandbox's purpose? Cjgoff (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cjgoff. It's common to draft an article in your sandbox (where it's called a userspace draft). People will more or less leave your sandbox alone if you're following the rules for using it. An alternatve is to draft an article in draft space. It's an area more conducive to collaboration than your personal sandbox, but there's a firmer limit on how long material is kept - after six months without improvement, it's eligible for soft deletion (soft because you can ask for it to be restored, in which case it usually is). User space drafts are commonly moved to draft space after they are submitted for review at Articles for creation, because at that point the author is seeking input from other editors. Once it has been moved to draft space, all further development of the topic should take place there. I hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:06:27, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rajsamand Blog



Rajsamand Blog (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajsamand Blog: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to advertise your blog. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:12, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Ferdig75


as suggested by Help Desk I replaced the source with a more authoritative one

Ferdig75 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferdig75: the subject still fails to meet the WP:NCORP criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:19, 25 June 2019 review of submission by 64.78.253.199


Hello- I resubmitted this page, trying hard to make it content-only. There are other similar companies with pages. Please let me know what to do so that it can comply. Thanks! 64.78.253.199 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@64.78.253.199: No matter how much you edit the draft to make it less promotional, you can't fix that the subject is not notable. See WP:NCORP for our inclusion criteria for companies. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:02, 25 June 2019 review of draft by FrankyCentaur


Hi there, a few months back I created a draft for a page (and it was my first time doing so,) I waited quite a while for it to be reviewed just for it to be declined immediately, which is disheartening though understandable. The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Murder_of_Holly_Branagan Now the main reason I'm here is to get some help and understanding. I was told the page was declined due to copyright, claiming that one of the links I used was infringing on it- however, the article provided was just a link to a news article. What's confusing to me is that I've seen tons of other wiki pages use references and links to news articles, so why exactly was mine declined because of that?

If because of that the article is not in the condition to be published, could I get some help to get it to a publishable point?

Thank you!

FrankyCentaur (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrankyCentaur. Linking is not the problem; linking is good. The draft infringed copyright by copying content from the linked newspaper article. You may only copy a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. Aside from limited quotation, you must paraphrase in your own words all information you get from the source.
The copyright violations have been removed from the draft, but without any effort at rewriting or adding attribution. If you think the event is notable, then you'll want to patch up around the removals. I'm not sure the topic meets the geographical scope requirement for notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:14, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Samcherry5

I wanted to ask about the article review process. I created an article which took 2 months to be reviewed, corrected the article following feedback (added additional sources as requested), now its been re-submitted it seems I may have to wait another 2 months for another review. Why are articles reviewed randomly rather than in order of submission? If this is the case the article Craig Jones (Royal Navy) will have taken 4 months to be submitted. thanks! Samcherry5 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us are volunteers here, you are being paid to edit and complaining that we are not reviewing your draft quickly enough. I review in no particular order what ever I come across that takes my interest, why should I give preference to a paid editor? Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong I wasn't complaining I was just asking about the process :) and Im not a paid editor :) Samcherry5 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:04:14, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Geolog10


Geolog10 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC) I have a couple of references I am using more than once in the potential entry for Makeda Cheatom. Each time I place a reference, it is given a new number. Could you go onto my entry and fix the first double entry so I see how to do it correctly? Geolog10Geolog10 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geolog10. I did this for the "Berenice" source in User:Geolog10/sandbox. The technique is known as "named references", and is explained at Help:Referencing for beginners#Same reference used more than once. Let me know if you have any trouble applying the technique to the remaining references. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:40, 25 June 2019 review of draft by SavinaTheWhite


Hello, I am trying to complete an article about Mark L. Hinshaw.

I do not have a great deal of experience writing such articles, (actually, none), and I am clearly making mistakes as this article has been declined twice. Mark Hinshaw is a notable architect with a body of work which is highly regarded, cited, referenced and well known in the field of architecture and urban design.

My concern is that, through my mistakes, his work will not be accepted for the wiki. I have read a number of your articles on BLP's as well as many technical articles, but I am worried that I am missing something important.

Will resubmitting this article until I manage to correct the issue cause it to be deleted? I am working directly with Mr. Hinshaw's permission, but it is clear that my abilities to write this to Wiki requirements are off the mark. The article was suggested by a number of his colleagues, who asked that I attempt to write it as Mr. Hinshaw is considered to be one of the most well known urban designers in the United States.


1.) The moderators suggested this article is written as promotional. This is not my intent. I wish to convey the vast array of Mr. Hinshaws work, and considering he is an author with a prolific amount of writing on record, I am left a bit buried by it all. In addition, there are many hundreds of quotes in other publications (books, articles & magazines), as he has more citations on google scholar than most professors. While not famous in the traditional sense, whenever the subject of urban design is raised, his name is also raised, and thus has had a notable career.

2.) The moderators suggested additional outside sources, so I have added a number from publications, not written by Mr. Hinshaw, but which quote him, interview him or cite his expertise. I could include dozens more, but this seems excessive.

Those that I have added are reputable secondary sources such as the NYT, Daily Journal of Commerce, and articles written by public organizations such as magazines, cities and conservation groups.

If these are not the correct source material, I would sincerely appreciate some assistance or suggestions on what I should change.

Thank you.

SavinaTheWhite (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SavinaTheWhite. I'm not sure he's as notable, highly regarded, cited, and well known as you think he is, but he may be notable enough to justify an encyclopedia article. I could make some suggestions, but am reluctant to invest effort in the draft until you:
  1. Recognize that you have a conflict of interest,
  2. Are transparent about it by disclosing the general nature of it - that you are related to him, or are a colleague of his, or whatever,
  3. Acknowledge that if the draft is accepted, you will not edit the article. The article may omit information that you think is important, include factual errors, and/or include material that is unfavorable. You may request changes on the article's talk page, but will have to live with it if the consensus of other editors is to not make the changes.
--Worldbruce (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:30:28, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tmgmt



Tmgmt (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Hello, My name is Princess Graves and I have been reading your feedback from Wikipedia's articles of creation department about the content submitted in my request to be approved. I'm having trouble making another attempt I transferred my Wikipedia article request information over to (wikipedia) manual of style / music considering what was suggested from Hon, but I don't see my recent article and I'm ready to proof read and check the spelling. However, my business and my beginning rap career totally needs the Wikipedia article for future references. I have provided all appropriate documentation from my records, any further information is considered confidential and can't be disclosed. Does the changes help me get the approval? It'll improve my SEO and allow my label room to grow further. Thanks in advance.[reply]

@Tmgmt: - Wikipedia does NOT exist to aid advertising or SEO. Records that come from you can't help more than confirm certain details in an article. Articles need notability, which is from reliable secondary sources. Musicians have specific requirements - which can be seen here. As an encyclopedia, we don't cover "new or up and coming" individuals, instead we summarise what other sources have already covered in detail. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:23, 25 June 2019 review of submission by Hubbard kings

My draft was declined for reading too much like an advertisement. However, I believe I did my due diligence reading other company's wikipedia pages to understand tone and how to explicitly state what the company offers, and would like to request a re-review. If the tone still needs work, can you please point out any specific sections that read too much like an advertisement? That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Hubbard kings (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hubbard kings. The draft reads like a company brochure, which is a problem, but it was rejected because the company is not notable. Most businesses aren't, and that's a problem that no amount of editing can fix. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information.
It's unwise, by the way, to simply imitate existing Wikipedia articles about companies. The existence of an article doesn't mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guideline, doesn't mean it should exist. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet, and it is not a good excuse for creating similar articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you want to learn from examples, be sure to only use Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:04:53, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tmgmt



Tmgmt (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC) For the record. I'm aware Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not free ad space!!!!!!!!!!! I'm Princess Graves given all of the provided information, a newcomer to how this works not to mention I'm needing some solidarity overall. check out this link. I'm thinking of adding it into the article from which there was only 50 copies published and sold. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-gangsta-family-hooked-on-ebonics/1123256073?ean=9780692482322&st=PLA&sid=BNB_ADL+Core+Good+Books+-+Desktop+Low&sourceId=PLAGoNA&dpid=tdtve346c&2sid=Google_c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo_KujLWF4wIVgVYNCh2xvQQhEAQYASABEgLzJvD_BwE[reply]

Request on 21:09:06, 25 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tmgmt



Tmgmt (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC) are you there? theroadislong I'm Princess Graves and of course my Wikipedia article and literary story was prepared by a college freshman and "Journalism" major. If need I make it known princess Graves and I are both right here and I'm learning how this process works just the same. Princess has been great at assisting me in the aspect of giving me specific insight and I'm gladly giving my open minded analyzation and humble perspective of who she is and why she should be seen in the light as she continues building her entertainment label and music catalogs.[reply]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no verifiable content in the draft and no evidence that you even exist. Please stop. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:52, 25 June 2019 review of draft by SD1014


Given the number of edits and revisions to this page based on editor feedback, I wanted to follow up to see if the post now meets the criteria for publishing. I've stringently followed the latest feedback from April 30. Thank you in advance! SD1014 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:41, 25 June 2019 review of draft by 173.52.219.146


173.52.219.146 (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! My submission keeps being rejected and I am still not certain what i am doing wrong.

My name is Dale and my user name is mlemoore and i am trying to write an article on one of my favorite authors Bett Williams.

here are some of the sbumission notes I have gotta aka reasons my piece has been rejected. I redid my citations, took out the sources that one user said were not verifiable and I am still not getting approved....

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Comment: References still need to meet WP:CITE and inline citation criteria Mjs1991 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Needs more external sources independent of the subject. Do not reference goodreads. Do not reference linkedin self-published pages as they are primary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mlemoore. Williams is not notable. The most common way to demonstrate the notability of authors is through multiple, independent, full-length reviews in reliable sources. In practice, I've seen drafts with as many as five meaty reviews turned down. At Articles for deletion, it took a hard fight in a discussion with wide participation to keep even one with six reviews in The Times (London), The New York Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, The New York Times, The Economist, and the Providence Journal.
The draft cites a single full-length review, in PopMatters. Capsule reviews like Kirkus don't establish notability, and the two sentences in Vogue don't move the needle. No amount of editing will make the draft acceptable. Possibly there will be more reviews after her third book is published. In a year or two you can revisit the topic to see if more and better sources are available. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

00:18:01, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Stanford1993

{{SAFESUBST:Void| 00:18:01, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Stanford1993


Hello, I think I am auto-confirmed user but it looks like I used AOC for this article, and it will take up to 8 weeks for review. I could not find where to create an article as an auto-confirmed contributor. Do I need to redo the article as an auto-confirmed contributor, and if so, would it be possible to direct me to the way to create a new article in that way? Thank you very much. Stanford1993 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford1993 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stanford1993: You are not autoconfirmed, you have only made 9 edits (you need 10). JTP (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

02:36:08, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Desantisg


Requesting further clarity as to why my draft was rejected. It is similar to other companies. Contains sources from National Media in Canada such as the Financial Post, which is Canada's version of Wall Street Journal. The article attempts to share information about an emerging technology business in Canada that has been recognized and is growing. Would love to better understand how other businesses get featured. Thanks!

Desantisg (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Desantisg. The Financial Post is a decent start, but at present the company is not notable. Most business aren't. See WP:BFAQ#COMPANY for more information. Revisit the topic in a few years when it is no longer "emerging". --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:58, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Pgk707


Hi, I don't understand why this article is rejected. In a previous message I got, missing references was a reason. There are now quite some references as requested. Any help and recommendation would be highly appreciated.

Pgk707 (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk707 It got rejected because there is another draft at Draft:ERCIM for the same subject. Your best bet would to be to combine the two and then submit Draft:ERCIM when you are finished. Whispering(t) 23:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:09:17, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Ba330

First off, thank you for reviewing my article. I would greatly appreciate feedback to help create a very simple, easy to read article on RAYMUNDO. Ba330 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


09:50:12, 26 June 2019 review of draft by Alwayswriteskr


Alwayswriteskr (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alwayswriteskr: - additional sources are needed which meet the in-depth/independent/reliable/secondary requirements. It's also really helpful if you can fuller refs (so they don't just appear as numbers) - Referencing for beginners can show you how :) Nosebagbear (talk)

14:30:46, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Amyefoster82

I have taken out the quotes. I assume they are what was perceived as advocacy. Please resubmit for review. Amyefoster82 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:42, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Wordcobbler


Wordcobbler (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC) This is in answer to the two messages about my article submission. To Theroadislong: I am in no one's employ, and I have no conflicts of interest. Period. To Curb Save Charmer: I don't understand why you say there are no sources attached to the reviews of my books. The reliable, independent sources, from The New York Times to Scientific American, Los Angeles Times, Publishers Weekly, etc., are all listed plainly following the review excerpts. None is from a dust jacket. Did you not see that? As to awards and being written about, there are many WP articles that violate that criterion. To cite only two: George Taber, whose notability is based on a four-paragraph Time article that led to a wine tasting. Nothing written about him, no awards. Charles Trueheart, who has had a nice career, but has received no awards or notices and no reviews of his one published book. How do you justify rejecting my article while approving theirs?Wordcobbler (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordcobbler:. If you are claiming to be Joseph Harriss ("reviews of my books") and to have no conflict of interest ("I have no conflicts of interest. Period."), then you don't grasp what a conflict of interest is. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:13, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Parth239


Greetings!

I'm Parth Bhatt, a high school student and I have undertaken over 250 courses by organisations like United Nations, United States Institute of Peace and Peace Operations Training Institute, USA. I have several achievements of national and international level.

I wanted to have a wikipedia page on me so that people and children of my age group can get to know about me and get in contact with me for help in completing courses. I want the youth to be aware of the current global issues as they are the future. As a child, I realised that I need to take part in empowering others in order to make this world a better pace to live. I did not want to be the one who focuses only on academics but a person with practical knowledge and experience.

Most of my references and citations are offline. Can anyone please help me in making the article.

Thanking you with kind regards, Parth Bhatt

Parth239 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:00, 26 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:A9AD:5A8:E3BE:41E7

why is this taking so long, the movie comes out in 1 month

2600:1700:93B0:1350:A9AD:5A8:E3BE:41E7 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:59:53, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Floydhome

I'm not sure that I understand why our page was rejected. can you please provide more information? Floydhome (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is written as an advert, the topic is not notable. The only source provided is an original source made by the company subject. Articles require multiple independent and reliable sources for approval and move to main-space and Wikipedia accounts are for single person use only. You have a conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:32, 26 June 2019 review of submission by Swampcygnet


I've added a few more secondary sources, let me know how it looks. Thanks.

Swampcygnet (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:24:48, 26 June 2019 review of draft by 50.236.252.20

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

The draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Touchstone_(software) has been completely reworked and new sources brought in to validate the legitimacy of its claim to Wikipedia-worthiness. However, the newest draft has been again denied due to issues with "reliable sources". Can someone please point out which sources referenced in the draft are unreliable? Thank you. 50.236.252.20 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told before "Those sources that arguably are independent do not mention Touchstone at all. Those that mention Touchstone are all written by AIR. Wikipedia requires secondary sources, not just what a company says about its own product." Please also read WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

These are not written by AIR and are not quoting AIR. They list information about the product that came from, one presumes, the investigations of the writer:
https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/risk/downloads/crs-geac-multiline-data-schema-consultation-document-v0.1.pdf
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/08/17/498511.htm


While these quote someone from AIR, they also include their own research:
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2018/08/17/498511.htm
https://actuaries.asn.au/Library/Events/CAT/2014/P2WAITEPresentation.pdf


Furthermore, how are these last two not reliable sources? Are the editors of Wikipedia suggesting that material from the Insurance Journal doesn't make for reliable source material, even though Insurance Journal is a distinguished publication in the insurance industry and its material is already used as sources on other Wikipedia entries, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Travelers_Companies? And are the editors of Wikipedia suggesting that material from the Actuaries Institute doesn't make for reliable source material, even though it is THE professional body for actuaries in Australia and its material is already used as sources on other Wikipedia entries, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss, and even has its own Wikipedia entry, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuaries_Institute? Please be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.236.252.20 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read other crap exists the /Actuaries Institute is a blatant advert and copyright violation I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21:02:44, 26 June 2019 review of draft by AlpacaWiki


User:GSS moved the article to draft space for lack of citations from reliable, independent sources (and/or because he accused me of being a paid writer ?!?). I answered here, but didn't receive a reply from him since.

I agree that the Functionality section of the article was a bit low on sources/citations. This was because the information was gathered from the website and documentation, which I verified by actually using the software. I now added references to the website where I felt it was necessary. I was just wondering what the typical way of handling such situation is, because I checked various other Wikipedia articles of open-source software and it seems to be similar with some of them.

Thanks for taking time to review and help.

AlpacaWiki (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlpacaWiki I took a gander through your sources all of them seem to be primary sources. Which are great for proving something exists however they aren't all that great at proving how something is significant enough for inclusion here at Wikipedia. For that you need secondary sources, which are good at showing why something should be included here on Wikipedia. Whispering(t) 23:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


June 27

00:33:23, 27 June 2019 review of submission by 148.75.165.78


Found and referenced additional significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject

148.75.165.78 (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@148.75.165.78: - hi there, as this was, it should have been declined, not by rejected by your reviewer.
In any case, I've reviewed it again and passed it - very impressive to find reviews that good for a film over a century old! Nosebagbear (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

01:55:14, 27 June 2019 review of draft by Joshua at mixi Inc


Hi there! I requested the creation of a COI article to be made in my stead, but it was declined because there were insufficient reliable sources, and also for the reason that it read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.

We are now attempting another request on the Japanese Wikipedia, hoping that we can provide more reliable sources in Japanese. However, we are unsure if the addition of links to the app's awards will help increase the number or reliable resources, or instead make it read more like an advertisement. I would be very grateful if you could give me your opinion as an experienced editor!

Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your reply. Joshua @ mixi

Joshua at mixi Inc (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua at mixi Inc if you can find good sources in Japanese, or any other language, you can cite them here too. The English Wikipedia accepts sources in any language. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:21, 27 June 2019 review of submission by PilotSuggs

The article has been updated to reflect the recent extreme adventure that Paul Suggitt has completed, a first on the actual route he took. It also draws note on the firsts he has completed over the last few years that are documented in the media. Any help / tweaks to get this published will be so gratefully received.

PilotSuggs (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PilotSuggs, the draft currently relies almost entirely on local sources. If you can reference good sources from outside the Hartlepool area it might improve the chance of acceptance. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:35, 27 June 2019 review of draft by 2600:1700:93B0:1350:B5F7:9119:E9C9:92FB

so a poster surfaced on the web and it could mean that Ash will be in Galar and will travel with Gloria but there was no confirmation from ShoPro or TV Tokyo.

2600:1700:93B0:1350:B5F7:9119:E9C9:92FB (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:27:59, 27 June 2019 review of draft by PamMusic


Thank you for the initial review. The reviewer's comment was to add headings. Is this all I need to do? Is there also a problem with essay vs encyclopedic tone, as described in the introductory text?

I realize I still have some more work to do, including an external link to the ensemble's website and adding links for text items that refer to entities with their own Wikipedia articles.

PamMusic (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:14, 27 June 2019 review of draft by Coffeeandsmoke


Hi! I recently submitted an article for re-review Draft:Queens Night Market. I'd love to add some pictures, assuming the article is reviewed and ultimately accepted. Should I wait until a decision is made in order to upload pictures? Also, since I have a COI, are there special guidelines I should follow with respect to which images I submit for the article? I suppose the pictures should also somehow be neutral in tone, but not sure how to accomplish that as easily with pictures. Would love to get your advice. Thanks! Coffeeandsmoke (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffeeandsmoke (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:46, 27 June 2019 review of draft by WillRowActor


Hi, I received an email that an edit had occurred. I am unsure what the edit was or how it aleffexts my pqge? Will Rowlands 17:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@WillRowActor: - if you click "view history" on your draft (move the dots on the left to select which versions you'd like to compare) you can see. The three edits made on the page since you last altered it are:
1) Moving it from your sandbox to a draft 2) Adding a couple of tags 3) A different editor declining it from AfC - as Wikipedia can't self-cite. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

03:47:52, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Soundwavepulseblaster

I'm requesting a re-review because this rapper needs an article on Wikipedia. I hope I followed the terms this time as well.

Soundwavepulseblaster (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Soundwavepulseblaster: - the reviewer was correct to decline, as the draft needs more sources. Please take a look at the musician notability list of criteria. Fragmentationous would need to meet at least one of those, usually criterion 1 (multiple sources). Currently the only source doesn't appear to be about him so doesn't count. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:22:52, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Farhinvohra07


Farhinvohra07 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Why my article is rejected? Can you please help me out finding my answer?Farhinvohra07 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farhinvohra07 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:39, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Guru1313


how do i submit the original draft, it appears am submitting a duplicate draft. Please i need some help. thanks

Guru1313 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guru1313: - I've submitted the original draft found here to AfC for you. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:52, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Shantiwong

My review said my article was contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. Some explanation of why this is would be helpful. Shantiwong (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shantiwong: - it's not clear what the draft is intending to talk about. It links to a couple of pre-existing articles and has a few weblinks, so doesn't appear to attempt to be an article. If you want to add those links to those articles then you can go there to do so (if they're appropriate)
If there's something we're missing than please let me know on my talk page (see the "talk" button in my signature) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:28, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Kendoma


Hello guys I don’t know why that article was denied. All i wrote about that person is real. He is a new rocking teenager in uganda so there is no that much references about him so I request your help Kendoma (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:41:33, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Kendoma


Hello Am asking for assistance on that article because all i wrote in the article is true. I got everything from the main source when he was interviewed. This person i wrote about is a new fashion rocking teenager In uganda so he doesn’t have that much references online about him because he just made his breakthrough. This person was discovered on instagram. Thanks for your assistance Kendoma (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11:13:30, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Sucharita Sen

My article has been cancelled by the reviewer and the reason showing is lack of references. But I have given IMdb website and a person's personal website for reference. But it's not acceptable according to wikipedia rules. This is a Script Writer's biography so please help me ehich type reference or citations will be accepted?? Sucharita Sen (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sucharita Sen: - hi there. Notability in Wikipedia is demonstrated by the use of sources that are: secondary (newspapers, books etc); reliable (good editorial control, trustworthy); independent (no reason to be biased, which means most interviews are out) & have significant coverage (at least a few paragraphs about the individual).
best thing to do is take a look at a few good articles in Wikipedia to see the sources there. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:11, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Moonsoftwizz


Moonsoftwizz (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

12:40:56, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Hosseini.1991


I would like to know what changes I need to make exactly in order to have this article accepted. I do not understand why it is contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Thank you for your help.


Hosseini.1991 (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


13:44:40, 28 June 2019 review of submission by Samrt tech

Request on 13:44:40, 28 June 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Samrt tech



Samrt tech (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=903873836"