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 DylanStone17 (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 3 January 2020. 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


December 28

03:49:18, 28 December 2019 review of submission by Wantok Author


I have now had two photographs that I own the copyright to taken down because some random decided that I didn't own the copyright. I'm getting heartily sick of this. How on earth does anyone actually upload photos? How on earth do you prove to some random stranger that this is your photo? I asked permission of the subject in both cases and they provided the photo to me for the purposes of the entry. This is surely far preferable to me taking a photo of them without their permission or knowledge but uploading it successfully because I took the photo myself.

I'd be grateful for a discussion and reversion of this because it is making Wikipedia feel like a white male stronghold of bias and disdain.


Wantok Author (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wantok Author, Howdy hello! I understand that the photo process can be somewhat annoying. Any photo whose copyright status is suspect is usually taken down quickly, as there are serious legal implications if we host copyrighted material that is not properly licensed. So to help me help you, I wanna clarify the origin of the image. Did you take it, with your own camera? If not, who took it? If it is another person, you must have them email permission to use the photo to Wikipedia. I see that you have a talk page notice of an image deleted under fair use. Be aware that fair use, while broad in some countries, is quite narrow on Wikipedia, and usually does not cover photos of living people. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - who do I email to? I did not take the photo but know the person who did and can get them to email wikipedia so I can reinstate the photo. Although I note that official photographs are paid for by the person in question and they then hold the copyright - I know both people so can get either to email permission. If someone can point me to where the email should go I can get this sorted out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantok Author (talk • contribs) 06:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wantok Author, You ought read [1], and then email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. It's not the easiest information to find. Help appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wantok Author (talk • contribs) 07:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:36, 28 December 2019 review of draft by Michaelmonet44


I was given feedback in October and and made the necessary edits at the top of November but am still waiting to receive feedback or approval. So I am not sure if my last edit has ever been reviewed. Please let me know if I did not submit it correctly or if there is anything else I need to do. Thank you. Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelmonet44 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Michaelmonet44#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10:42:34, 28 December 2019 review of submission by Shanudeshmukh


Shanudeshmukh (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shanudeshmukh, Your draft had no sources, and no indication of notability. It appeared to exist only to promote its subject. Creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do here. You might wish to edit in other areas of Wikipedia to get a a feel for how editing works first. You can ask questions about how to edit at the friendly Teahouse. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17:21:50, 28 December 2019 review of submission by SteaminThomasTheTrain32

i gave credit

SteaminThomasTheTrain32 (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


20:52:01, 28 December 2019 review of draft by Prana1111

Hi, there might be a problem with the Draft:Chalkydri. It's not the article itself that seems be the issue. For some reason it redirects to another article called seraph. My article is not a duplicate though. The word chalkydri appears on a sub-section of the seraph article but only because chalkydri and seraph are both considered a species of angel in religious context. On the contrary, their portrayals in ancient texts are entirely different therefore they are not the same beings. If the draft is published I might be able to fix the redirect myself without help, unless it is automatically fixed as soon as it is published. I could give the article a temporary title before changing the link redirect if needed. Also I am not posting this message to make the page reviewer look at my page faster since I know it can take as long as months when I only created the draft yesterday, I just want to make sure my draft is visible to administrators and the like. If this helps, my draft was moved to Category:AfC submissions with the same name as existing articles. Thanks in advance.Prana1111 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prana1111 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Prana1111: the reviewer will take care of the redirect for you. Nothing to worry about. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

22:56:33, 28 December 2019 review of submission by 68.103.78.155

Stop This. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop what? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

68.103.78.155 (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

02:13:03, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Slasher2point1


Slasher2point1 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am trying to add an Infobox to the Tommy Nelson (actor) page after uploading a picture of him. I put all of the correct information in, but it will not allow me to create the Infobox. I was hoping someone could help fix this.

Also, there is a note saying I need "additional citations for verifications" because I listed imdb.com as the reference for his birthday. Someone commented saying that imdb was unreliable despite the information being correct and in my personal studies, I have found many other pages for actors use this reference and do not have the note. I would like to get this note removed, so could someone either remove it for me or recommend another website I could use for a citation to ensure this page meets the necessary standards? Thank you.

Sincerely, Slasher2point1

Hi Slasher2point1. I fixed the formatting of the infobox for you. IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, with a couple narrow exceptions that do not apply in this case. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. If many other articles are misusing IMDb, they should be fixed. There is a "needs additional citations for verification" tag on Tommy Nelson (actor) for many more reasons than the date of birth and IMDb. There are many other statements in the article that do not cite a source. Add sources for them, or remove the statements. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

04:55:41, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Acekard


Acekard (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acekard, Youtube notability (of which you can read more about at WP:NYOUTUBE) is a tricky thing. Even channels with a million subs might not get articles. Mainly, we need news coverage of the channels. There seems to be little about their actual channel that is interesting/notable enough for Wikipedia. The fact that they are conservative does not make them more or less notable. A lot of people on YouTube are conservative. A lot aren't. In essence, you have failed to show how they are deserving of an article, which is why it has been rejected. Unless you can find many more good sources, I recommend you focus your efforts elsewhere. I know having a draft rejected doesn't feel good, but creating articles from scratch is quite hard. In the future, you may wish to ask for advice (either here, or at the Teahouse) about whether a particular subject may be notable. That will keep you from spending time on something that isn't actually notable. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:56, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Themusicscholar101


Thank you so much for working so quickly on this. I have been following this young man in his music for a while. He has made a huge impact in the music industry as well as the make a wish foundation. Please help me recognize what he has done by accepting his article. If not please let me know what I can add to have the article accepted and if I can re-submit. Thanks so much... Themusicscholar101 (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Themusicscholar101, It doesn't actually appear that he has made a huge impact in the music industry. Where are the sources that say that? How has a 16 year old made a huge impact in music without even releasing a charting song or album? This seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. This kid seems destined for greatness, but he just ain't famous yet. In a few years, when he has done more, then he might be notable enough for an article. But at this time, hes just another kid. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:02, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Johhnyfrankie13


Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johhnyfrankie13, We have no article about the Millennium award, so no reason to have a template for it. As is, see the already extant Template:Billboard Music Award for Millennium Award. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


08:46:22, 29 December 2019 review of submission by 2400:1A00:B010:5F87:30C7:2D86:191D:9E59


2400:1A00:B010:5F87:30C7:2D86:191D:9E59 (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has no sources and is written like an advertisement. It also seems to be about an average person, thus no special reason for them to have a Wikipedia page. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:08, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Rohitmishra111


Rohitmishra111 (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, the article could easily be found out on Google. People are unable to find out article "Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest" from today. Why is this happening ? Could you please help me out ? Waiting for your reply.

Hi Rohitmishra111. The article is Mahatma Gandhi Central University protest. The behaviour of third-party search engines, such as Google, is outside our control here at Articles for Creation. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:48, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Jennagold2019

I have made all the suggested revisions -- including various references/sources and also making the content more factual. As one of the largest annual Veg festivals in the world -- attracting over 50K people every year -- and including the support of well-known authors, researchers, and civic leaders, I do believe this is a noteworthy page. Thank you...

Jennagold2019 (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennagold2019, It is written like an advertisement, not like the factual and neutral content of an encyclopedia. It would need to be entirely re-written to comply with our standards. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


16:26:56, 29 December 2019 review of submission by Abdel fattah yusif


Abdel fattah yusif (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC) because is part of my personal life[reply]

Abdel fattah yusif, If you know this person, that means you have a conflict of interest, which must be declared. However, this person seems to be an average person like you or I. That means they are not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Only those who have been covered in multiple reliable and independent sources can be on Wikipedia. Furthermore, please stop creating additional drafts under different names. They will keep being deleted, and you risk being blocked from editing. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:11, 29 December 2019 review of draft by MaryKLynch


I traveled to Sharon Wisconsin this past July and interviewed Martha Hayden. I would like to know how to properly cite that interview in this article.

MaryKLynch (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless your interview was published by a reliable source you cannot use it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you have written the interview, it's probably not a good idea for you to cite it regardless. Please see our policy on conflict of interest Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


December 30

03:21:35, 30 December 2019 review of submission by Esotericmagik


Esotericmagik (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

why was this declined

03:22:20, 30 December 2019 review of submission by Esotericmagik


why did this happen Esotericmagik (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Esotericmagik: You're going to want to try this tutorial to get a basic understanding of what this site is and how it works. After that, I've written a guide that explains how to write articles that will not be deleted.
Wikipedia is not a social media site, nor is it a place to promote anyone (or their social media accounts). You didn't cite any independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources to demonstrate notability (Youtube and Instagram are not reliable sources, and her own Youtube and Instragram accounts are not independent). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:06:24, 30 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by VishwaNayani


Hello, I am Vishwanath, I am here to know what is the issue with my draft as I cannot understand the reason for its decline. This is the draft link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sri_Balaji_Educational_Society If there is a issue regarding the sources I am still collecting Also I cannot understand that there is a need for adding template on my talk page, If it is a necessity please provide me with step by step process The article is no way related to me or my personal interests.

VishwaNayani (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Answered on talk page.) — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 07:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:15, 30 December 2019 review of submission by Dkmohta

My article is rejected stating that it is not notable. I would like to draw the attention that "Sahitya Academy Award" itself is very renowned and is very prestigious award. Mr. Soni is awarded with Shitya Academy Yuwa Puruskar in the year 2016. I have given sufficient references of the same.

Apart from this he has authored/ translated more then 10 books.

I again request you to re-review my article and kindly approve the same.

Dkmohta (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


05:57:44, 30 December 2019 review of draft by Barryc25


Article should not have been rejected. Please review it again. Thank you.

Barryc25 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barryc25. The draft was declined (which allows you to improve and resubmit it), not rejected (which would not give you the option of resubmission). The bulk of any article should be based on independent, reliable sources. At first glance, about 90% of the draft is based on what the organization says about itself. As the reviewer indicated, you'll need to throw away most of the sources you've cited and the content they support, or radically condense it. The draft should mainly summarize what independent sources like the Vancouver Sun and The Globe and Mail say about the organization. Also, Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference at all. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:06:05, 30 December 2019 review of submission by VishwaNayani

Hi Harshil, I am new to publishing article, can you advice any tips regarding my rejected article as well as the changes and additions that are required to be accepted by the Wikipedia. VishwaNayani (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VishwaNayani, It has been rejected, as I am afraid that it is not notable. There is no amount of editing that can fix that. Instead I recommend you work on some existing articles, and improve those. Creating an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do on WIkipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:44, 30 December 2019 review of draft by Zxcmnb00


Hello. It said it will take 4 mouths or more to review my draft. It takes too much time. Can I withdraw it?

Zxcmnb00 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently declined by Theroadislong. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14:33:54, 30 December 2019 review of draft by Arjanhalili


Hello! Can someone help me with this article I've been working on? I added some references and made some changes to it but the draft still got declined and I'm not sure how to continue from here. Arjanhalili (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arjanhalili, The issue here is that the sources you have do not show how the subject is notable. We don't just write about everyone here on Wikipedia, otherwise it would be unwieldy. Thus we have a set of standards for inclusion, which we call notability. The relevant guideline is the creative professional notability standards. Any topic may also simply meet the general notability guideline. So to get this article accepted, you need to find sources that meet those requirements. If you can't do that, then the subject is not notable, and we cannot write about them. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:56, 30 December 2019 review of draft by Hescher88


Wondering if there are any edits I should make on this page or if it is ready for review.

Hescher88 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hescher88 I have accepted your draft, it could do with some categories added. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hescher88, I see that it has been accepted as a draft by Theroadislong, so congrats! But you can always keep working on, and improving, articles that you have created. With luck, you could take this article to Good Article quality, or even the vaunted Featured Article quality. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20:34:52, 30 December 2019 review of submission by TabBytes

Hello Moderator , I did not recieve any message from you. I added a comment on 25 Dec for a draft. Please check ( 11:24:10, 25 December 2019 review of submission by TabBytes ) . Thanks TabBytes (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TabBytes, I'm afraid I don't see the comment. What is your question? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:54:48, 30 December 2019 review of submission by Bhavegaut


I am at a loss as to what the issue is. The page has many external references attesting to the importance of the field of matrix biology and then the history behind how the ASMB is a major organization promoting matrix biology. It also has significant information on the history of the organization including past presidents, past award winners, meetings, etc. When I compare it to existing Wiki pages for similar organizations such as the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Biochemistry_and_Molecular_Biology) or the American Society for Cell Biology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Cell_Biology) I don't see large differences and thus cannot see why these have been accepted as Wiki pages while my submission has not.

Bhavegaut (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavegaut, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. One of the issues here is that the societies you have linked have 10+ times the membership as the ASMB, which means they are larger and more likely to be covered by reliable sources. Regardless, those articles are still quite poor.
What you need here is better sources. You need independent and reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject, as per the general notability guidelines. The scientific papers you have are not the right sources here. If you remove those, then you only have the ASMB's own website, which is not independent. You need external coverage. If such external coverage does not exist, then the subject is not notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thanks for your thoughts. I honestly don't see your point on the other organizations as simply being bigger shouldn't justify much and if they are poorly written and got through the cracks then they should be removed and asked to be edited to reach your now higher standards. But putting that aside, I guess I just wanted to clarify your definition of external references - so the notion is that what you are looking for is not references pointing to the importance of the subject matter of an organization (i.e. matrix biology) but rather references to the organization itself. For instance, if a university has a news article on one of its professors winning an ASMB prize then that would be an external reference on the organization. Or alternatively, if a newspaper covered the organization or one of its members and their activities with the ASMB that would be an external/acceptable reference? Just trying to make sure I understand the definition as honestly it is not clear from the guidelines.

Thanks, Gautam Bhave, MD, PhD Assistant Professor of Medicine Vanderbilt University Medical Center — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhavegaut (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavegaut, You are right, we need sources on the organization itself. We have plenty of articles about matrix biology, where scientific papers are the preferred source. But this page is not about matrix biology, its about an organization, whose focus just happens to be matrix biology. Newspaper coverage of the organization would be ideal. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:56:39, 30 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Phil7strang


Lloyd Strang sang at the Metropolitan Opera Company in NY from 1959 thru 1970. he is referenced in several links by the Met and appears in one of your Wikipedia listings as well as someone who performed at the Met 170 times. I guess I do not know the proper way to list or link the references. He also sang and played with the Sammy Kaye Big Band from 1949-1955 and is on several of Sammy Kaye's albums listed as one of the three Kayedets. I would love it if someone other than me (his son) made the post but I would hate to see his notable contributions lost to history. He also was the lead singer for the Larry Clinton Orchestra hit in 1947 of "Ooh Looky there Ain't she Pretty"


Phil7strang (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil7strang, What you need here are reliable sources. Please see referencing for beginners. If you can link me 5 + news articles or other publications that are focused on him, please do so on my talkpage I can help you in going forward. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

04:46:10, 31 December 2019 review of submission by Fenojoy

Fenojoy (talk) 04:46, 31 December 2019 (UTC) I tried to publish an article about a hospital at Kochi, which is established in 1952 (Was started even before 1946). But the content was not published. It may be because my unawareness in posting. Kindly help me to resolve the issue and please post the Hospital information in the page, as it is one of the first charitable mission hospital in Kochi, Kerala.[reply]

Fenojoy, Perhaps you refer to User:Fenojoy/sandbox/MAJ Hospital? Or User:Fenojoy/sandbox? In either case, you need to greatly expand both articles using reliable sources (see referencing for beginners). But what you really should do is start new articles using the Article Wizard, as the Wizard automatically formats a new article for you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:21:12, 31 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Rahul1436


I am new for creating wiki pages. I am trying to create wiki page for Manjusha. She is host for many celebrity shows. Manjusha is inspirational figure and i want to know people know the same . I don't know the reason why my article got rejected. Initially i thought because of reference so i edited it and added her verified social media account. Still it got rejected. Can you help me creating this page. It's really helpful to me. Rahul1436 (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahul1436: References need to be Independent, so her social media account(s) arent considered a Reliable source. Happy new Year, Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:57, 31 December 2019 review of submission by Furious Cadets


Furious Cadets (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furious Cadets, Wikipedia is not for creating an autobiography. We only write about folks who have been covered in reliable sources. Your own YouTube videos are not suffucient. You need news coverage. Your page is against our guidelines, and will be deleted. That feels bad, but you should take this as a learning opportunity. I invite you to take The Wikipedia Adventure to show you the basics of Wikipedia. Or if you have other questions, please ask them at the friendly Teahouse. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


10:04:14, 31 December 2019 review of submission by Ksameer22

Hi,

This is about rejection of draft glByte, Could you please help/suggest me to improve the draft. This company is founded in mid year of 2019 and doesn't have any article, blog or news for notability.
I have gone through notability guide lines and still confused. How can I improve this draft ?

Any help is appreciated

Thanks
Ksameer22 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ksameer22. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Its articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. If there isn't significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources, then there is nothing you can do to improve the draft because the topic doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Most businesses aren't notable. You may find WP:BFAQ#Company informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

15:12:54, 31 December 2019 review of submission by Vesta82601


Trying to cover as part of civic engagement work, can we delete offending sections? Everything after career?

Vesta82601 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vesta82601: who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts must not be shared. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt: We meaning me and the reviewer.

@Vesta82601: Not sure why the reviewer would delete the offending sections, they didn't even specify any sections. But in general: this article has several problems, which I do not believe are surmountable. The sources do not give significant coverage to the subject, which means that they do not show how he is notable. The article seems to exist to promote the subject to notability, instead of reporting on an already notable subject. And the tone and style of writing is inadequate. If you can find me 3 sources that talk about Putorti with significant coverage and are reliable and independent, he might then be notable. But of the existing sources, none appear to mention him in more than passing. Oh, and PS: please make sure to sign all posts on talk page with four tildes "~". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:02, 31 December 2019 review of submission by 2401:4900:40B6:6D64:0:6A:8706:FD01


Dear how to create this Articles. Mention its 2401:4900:40B6:6D64:0:6A:8706:FD01 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article will not be created. Stop trying. The community determined, at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Rahul_Megh_Arya_Page, that the subject is not notable. That means it should not be on Wikipedia. Please stop creating this article, as you are being disruptive. It will continue to be removed and deleted. Give it a few years, and maybe then the subject will be notable. But at this time, they are not. In the meantime, please find something constructive to work on here. You may wish to take the Wikipedia Adventure to show you around. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Captain Eek is right. Unregistered editors have been trying to game the system in order to get a listing of this non-notable person. If the disruption continues, the title will be salted, and the IPv6 addresses may be blocked temporarily. (I recommended salting the title two months ago.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:48:38, 31 December 2019 review of submission by Escrenock

Could someone provide more feedback on how citations need to be changed? John is notable in his field, has previously won a prestigious fellowship at Oxford, and his colleagues have qualified for pages. Thanks for your help! Escrenock (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Escrenock, You can't just cite someone's papers. You need sources that discuss the subject as a person. You also need to show how they meet some part of the academic notability guidelines. If they do not meet some part of the guidelines, or do not have enough sources that discuss them, they are not notable. Also, every statement in the article needs an inline citation. Furthermore, the article seems to be more about the CEHB than John. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Escrenock - Also, are you related to the subject? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and make the disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

00:53:12, 1 January 2020 review of submission by Vesta82601


Removing all content from sources that give only passing coverage to the subject, as well as talks or content the subject has authored. Bare minimum stub that says why this person is notable, pattered off of the other co-founder Eric Ries. If insufficient, mark for deletion; thank you.

Vesta82601 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:04, 1 January 2020 review of submission by Boltonyl


I am unsure as to why this has been rejected on notability grounds. In terms of notability, this person is ultimately a representative of Her Majesty the Queen, a British Government official, Charity CEO and one of the roles is Military based.

Boltonyl (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boltonyl, We don't write articles about everyone, only those who have received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Many people are representatives of a head of state, but we don't write about every one. While this lad is certainly interesting, he does not yet rise to the level of notability required for Wikipedia. The sources do not show signficant coverage. The sources give only brief mentions, or are not reliable and independent. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Give it a few years, and this person may become notable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:28:56, 1 January 2020 review of submission by Contentlinguistic

There are number of issues and solution for Fisheries sectors in most of the country and the solutions using different technology and process are initiated by this company which is awarded by indian central government (Meity). Contentlinguistic (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contentlinguistic, The article was written like an advertisement. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. Please work on editing something else. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:41:35, 1 January 2020 review of submission by Nuggems


Please re-review this article. I have now edited this article to take a more neutral voice and remove any elements that can be construed as advertising and self-promotion. I have also added references and links to other Wikipedia Articles, making this Article now more notable.

Nuggems (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuggems, The style and tone is still far too casual. It should read formally, from a disinterested perspective, and using encyclopedic terms. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


18:06:56, 1 January 2020 review of submission by Johnchhana

Review says I need reliable sources, but this is a union in a very discrete part of India. Does that mean I cannot get my article published if all my facts are not covered on the news? But I see many very short articles out there. Johnchhana (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnchhana, We only have articles about things that have been covered in multiple reliable and independent sources. If something is not covered by sources, we do not cover it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:18:23, 1 January 2020 review of draft by OLIarchNY


To whom it may concern,

Although the resubmission included several additional references from the initial submission, the feedback remained the same and is therefore not conducive for improving the article.

In advocation of accepting this submission, I wanted to bring to attention that this article contains nine references to date; within the same category , there exist several pages with no more than two references (i.e. Mancini•Duffy or SLCE_Architects) or incomplete references (i.e. SO-IL).

Please consider this as sufficient evidence for publishing this article. Thank you.

@OLIarchNY: Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Of the page you've linked, Mancini duffy should probably not exist, and SLCE needs more refs. I think the SO-IL article is questionable too.
In looking at your sources, they do not provide significant coverage of the subject. It is also overly promotional. Wikipedia does not exist to promote its subjects. You need to find sources that cover the company in depth.
Furthermore, you need to disclose any affiliation with the subject per WP:COI. If you have been paid by them, compensated in any way, or are an owner/employee, you must disclose that by following the guide at WP:PAID. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

09:05:33, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Moinformation08


Hello, I wanted to clarify what determines notability, particularly in public spaces such as this one. Other similar spaces of similar notability in my area have been allowed on wiki and I was wondering if it's just how I've written my article. Thank you! Moinformation08 (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is our policy. There will be some items that are currently on article space that don't meet this policy. That doesn't mean yours gets a free pass. See our policy at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:50, 2 January 2020 review of draft by D at Trendera


First, I would like to disclose that I work for Trendera on behalf of Lilia Buckingham. I submitted a draft about Lilia Buckingham that was declined twice, most recently today, despite my claim that the subject passes WP:NACTOR#1 (if not WP:GNG outright). The reviewer, User:MurielMary, wrote in her most recent decline comment that "No evidence that the shows she has appeared in are notable, or that the roles she had were significant." However, four of the television shows in which Lilia Buckingham has appeared have been established as notable on Wikipedia and have extensive articles. In addition, Buckingham co-produces and narrates Crown Lake (source: Deadline) and she is referred to as one of the "stars of 'Chicken Girls'" in this Seventeen article, also cited in my draft, indicating that these are significant roles.

It appears clear to me that the subject passes the notability barrier easily. Please help me understand if and why I'm mistaken, or otherwise consider accepting this AFC submission. Thank you! D at Trendera (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D at Trendera (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:45:51, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Johnchhana


I have sited indiatoday and shillongtimes for my article, but my article still did not pass the review; I seriously cannot think of better coverage than our state and national news. I compared it with other articles about similar subjects and some with much less references are online. Is there something else about this? Johnchhana (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnchhana, Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Several issues remain in your article. You need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. In general, I recommend at least half of your sources to have significant coverage. The article is also not neutral, and overly promotes the subject. Remove the Constitution section. Remove the office bearers section. Also, large sections of the article are unsourced. Every claim should have a reliable source that backs it up.
You also appear to have a conflict of interest, which you should declare by following the steps at WP:COI.
You might appreciate this guide on how to successfully write an article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:26, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Joe.sanchez1631


Hi - I'd like to know what needs to be done to get this page live. I took the time to create it in an effort to better the automotive aftermarket industry content here on Wikipedia, but I'm having trouble getting this page live. Does it need more sources? Anything to help would be great. Thank you. -Joe (Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Joe.sanchez1631 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe.sanchez1631, I find it quite unlikely that this page will go live. It's an issue of notability. Wikipedia only covers subjects that have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A small time car company is very unlikely to meet that requirement. I know it feels bad to write an article and have it declined, but writing an article from scratch is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. I recommend you work on improving existing automobile content; you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:12:24, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Ap27956


Ap27956 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most nine year olds are not notable enough for Wikipedia purposes, you are no exception I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:24:31, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Ronaldo1948


On or around the 24th October I submitted a new Draft page entitled Matthews Southern Comfort (band). It was quickly reviewed by an editor Calliopejen1 and declined as it did not have sufficient references/citations. Some 30 odd references were added along with new text and it was resubmitted on October 28th. I had assumed that the same editor would re-review the article after I had complied with the reasons for rejection....but it seems not. Nearly 3 months has gone by and it seems Calliopejen1 is taking a break from Wikipedia according to her Talk page. Could I politely ask if someone else could do the re-review of this submission, it seems an extraordinary time to wait after the first review was so swift. Thanks Ronaldo1948Ronaldo1948 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Ronaldo1948 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronaldo1948: There is a massive backlog right now, please be patient. Reviews are averaging five months at this point. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the additional references show notability. Discogs, autobiography and Wikipedia show no notability. You also can't source a private conversation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:27:16, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Saravicca


I have substantially changed the draft page of Reinhart Ceulemans. It would be helpful if an experienced editor could indicate if the style now is acceptable for Wikipedia, and if not, which parts need to change. It is the first time I try to make a Wikipedia page.

Thanks in advance


Saravicca (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:26:39, 2 January 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Arthurmingard


Hello!

I wanted to get a rough outline for some details about Foundland Ltd but it has been rejected. I can write a lot more and add some links to external sources that have covered the company, but perhaps I'm missing something more fundamentally important?

Thanks for reviewing!

Arthurmingard (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthurmingard, This article is about a run of the mill company. We don't write about every company. Only those who have been given significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Since you submitted your draft with zero sources, it was rejected. I did a cursory google search, and did not see substantial external coverage. If you can find such coverage (at least 3 sources that meet WP:NCORP, and ideally more), the subject may be notable. But I find that unlikely. A single, recently formed business with one location is unlikely to meet our requirements. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:25, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Speakersden digitals


Speakersden digitals (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speakersden digitals, This article is about an average person, like you or I. We don't write about everyone. Only those who have been given significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources are notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I recommend you find something else to edit on Wikipedia. You may wish to take The Wikipedia Adventure. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:40:39, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Mahnoortarique

The content has been revised to avoid any promotional language that was highlighted in the previous submission. Please review the new draft.

Mahnoortarique (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnoortarique, It is still excessively promotional, and full of buzzwords. Its notability is also questionable. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:09:49, 2 January 2020 review of draft by Psurajit


Hi, I don't understand why the reviewer said there are not sufficient secondary sources. I included two newspaper articles from major newspapers in India that had full-length interviews with Ranjani and called her one of the leading talents of her generation. Why does this not qualify? I think the reviewer is just wrong—both Pune Mirror and Hindustan Times are prestigious and reliable outlets.

Psurajit (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:24:26, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Godswitness111


hey I recently created a article and it was decined I was wondering if someone more experienced then me could explain to my why it was declined and how I could go about making the proper changes to get approved Godswitness111 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Godswitness111: There's a few different reasons I'm seeing, such as properly citing independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. I've written a guide that gives plain step-by-step instructions, as part of a larger guide covering a variety of matters (like finding sources). If you follow that guide on how to write articles, the draft will not be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Godswitness111, Well the main issue, as the reviewer noted, was that you need to properly format the references inline. Please see referencing for beginners for a complete guide. You also should not have external links in the body of the article. All such links should go in a separate "External links" section at the very end. The internal links are good and fine though. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:45:39, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Lobstercrossing


I have supplied additional sources and added more content. In addition, I have reached out to the record label in Germany requesting any links to additional articles written about the band in Europe. Also, sidenote, this page 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgement_X_Day' references World Of Pain as well, however placing reference brackets around the name doesn't link to the World Of Pain draft. Is it because it is only a draft and not published? Thank you for your time.

Lobstercrossing (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


January 3

11:04:26, 3 January 2020 review of draft by Devesh16041996


Devesh16041996 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:09, 3 January 2020 review of submission by AugusteBlanqui


15:15:13, 3 January 2020 review of submission by DylanStone17


Dylan Stone (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Team,

I am requesting a new review. This company is significant should be added to Wikipedia for reference.

Thank you.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=933885408"