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 Coder196 (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 28 May 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


May 22

00:34:28, 22 May 2020 review of draft by Lex9000

I wrote a chemistry page about a specific molecule. I was told it was too esoteric or specific or something. Idk how to generalize it or make it more accessible with out teaching an organic chemistry lesson on the page. I looked at pages for other molecules but they were similar. What should I do?Lex9000 (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lex9000 ([[User talk:Le. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:51:37, 22 May 2020 review of draft by GenteelVirginian

I am trying to publish this draft (Draft:COMINT Consulting). The sources ARE good so I am not sure why it keeps being denied.GenteelVirginian (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC) GenteelVirginian (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:24:27, 22 May 2020 review of submission by SowmyaPURUSHOTHAMAN

how to give information about wp:creative. and how to clear the error in the draft. SowmyaPURUSHOTHAMAN (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:06:31, 22 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by TaylorRiess

I'm writing regarding my draft:George_Tourville article. It appears I've been rejected because my subject does not appear in the news enough to be considered notable. However, it only appears that way because the local newspaper only started releasing stories digitally in 2006, so when you do a simple internet search of the guy, nothing too interesting comes up (he did most of his important things from 2002 to 2005). I am a resident of the city of relevance in the article and I, using my local library, searched through archived articles from the two local newspapers. As a consequence, a lot of my sources for the article are basically unreachable for the average Wikipedia user unless they go down to my local library. I understand this is a problem for verification of sources, but is there any way around this? There's really not many interesting articles mentioning him post-2006, so I really don't know what I can do when my local newspaper is my primary source for a lot of information in the article, and for identifying the subject as being a person of importance.

Thanks for your consideration, TaylorRiess (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There never has been and never will be a requirement that references must be available online. Simple references, in whatever style you choose, are quite adequate. The big problem is that this guy was the mayor of a small town, and never achieved anything that qualifies as notability by Wikipedia standards; that's why all your references are to the local paper. A mayor of Toronto or even Minneapolis is generally notable enough to justify an article in a global encyclopedia. A mayor of East Gnathole, South Dakota? Not so much. I fear that Tourville falls more into the East Gnathole class than the Toronto class. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:53:30, 22 May 2020 review of draft by Newystats

What do you mean by insufficient context�?

The page is to aid readers navigating through deputies elected to the various constituencies of the department. Should I rename it to a list to make it clear to reviewers what the page is for? Newystats (talk) 06:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newystats. It's strange to focus so narrowly on Ain. If all departments used proportional representation in that election, then a List of deputies of the 8th National Assembly of France, ordered by department, would be a more useful navigation aid. It also would fit in better with the existing List of deputies of the 11th National Assembly of France ... List of deputies of the 15th National Assembly of France and thus gain easier acceptance from other Wikipedians. If you don't have time to populate the whole list, you could start it with Ain, and other editors could expand the list until it is complete.
Whatever approach you take, as an experienced editor, Articles for Creation is an optional process for you. If you believe the page is now adequately sourced, you may move it back to article space yourself. The worst that could happen is that it could be nominated for deletion if someone disagrees. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:28:11, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Bluegene18

Hello. A more experienced Wikipedia editor has kindly revised this article. Is it now suitable for resubmission? Thank you. Bluegene18 (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:36:45, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Sohinimoitra84

Please could you kindly elaborate why does the article seem to have a Conflict of interest with Zee Bangla? I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia based on information collated from local newspaper, interviews about Bengali Television actors or shows and the involved cast.

The earlier draft had few unnecessary adjectives, and redundant information. The details have been cleaned and the information has been written in more factual format that has been used for other Bengali Television actors on Wikipedia - For eg: Jeetu Kamal,Debadrita Basu etc. Thank you for your consideration.

Sohinimoitra84 (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:00, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Helpseo7pp

Helpseo7pp (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:00, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Helpseo7pp

Any input on why my citations for Experience Travel Group have not been deemed acceptable. All citations mentioned are published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (by Wikipedia's definition!!).

11:52:03, 22 May 2020 review of draft by Rhoknee

I have provided all the links where I picked the content in references but still I was requested to provide citation. Should these be within the Article?

Rhoknee (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhoknee. Using inline citations is a small technical step in the right direction, but it's nowhere near enough to make the draft acceptable. There is a huge gap between what the cited sources say, and what the draft claims. Taking just the first source as an example:
Source-Text Integrity
Cited Source Draft Permissible
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

ADMISSIONS, 2014/2015 ACADEMIC YEAR
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
WUNYI Aggrey M Ugandan

As an Administrative Officer,Aggrey Wunyi has over 20 years’ experience that spans a number of Ministries, Departments and Agencies. He was born in Luuka District, Eastern Uganda, on 02 January 1976. He is the third born of the seven children of Aggrey Ntange and Namutebi. From 1982, Aggrey attended Budhabangula and Kitwekyambogo Primary Schools, graduating in 1988. In 1989, he entered Kiyunga Sec Secondary for his secondary education. After his secondary education, he joined Jinja SSS for A-Levels from where he joined Makerere University Uganda, to study Social Sciences. He obtained a Bachelors of Arts in Social Sciences (BASS) . Later, he obtained a Diploma, from Uganda Management Institute, in Kampala, Uganda's capital and largest city. Aggrey Wunyi also holds a Master of Business Administration (M.B.A) from Makerere University Business School (MUBS) Wunyi was admitted to the Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) program at Makerere University Business School (MUBS) for the 2014-2015 academic year.
An even bigger problem is that it is unlikely that you will be able to show that an undersecretary and author of one book is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). There simply aren't multiple, independent (i.e. not his employer), reliable, secondary sources which contain significant coverage (not passing mentions) of him. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:51, 22 May 2020 review of draft by Rawsar

I need help on expanding this article. Rawsar (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rawsar The article should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the book, showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable book. The sources you have are not such sources. If there are no independent sources with significant coverage, the book would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:40, 22 May 2020 review of draft by Emma4ph

How to write a biography about myself

and also what the sample? Emma4ph (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emma4ph. Unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, or similar sites, Wikipedia not a place to write about yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:26:14, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Andrj163

I've tried submitting this page a couple times, and we've been declined every single time. My colleague (klest001) and I work for the Association of Independent Mortgage Experts which is a non-profit organization that works to assist independent mortgage brokers communicate their value to consumers. One of the ways we wanted to help educate consumers is to maximize the searchability of the mortgage lenders in the wholesale space that offer the best options to consumers starting with UWM and United Shore as they are the largest in the space at this time and continue to add pages as our time allows.

Our organization is uploading the Wikipedia pages as a consumer education tool but our reference material to write the submissions was pulled from articles and press materials which might have contributed to the promotional language. Do you have any advice for the best method to add pages effectively?

Andrj163 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrj163 Your draft Draft:United Shore Financial Services has been correctly rejected outright. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool for your organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:05, 22 May 2020 review of submission by As0987

As0987 (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@As0987: The draft is linked in the line above, there is no need to paste the entire thing here.
The draft has been rejected because the subject is not notable. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic has no hope of being accepted for publication. Consequently, volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:49, 22 May 2020 review of submission by KRISTIN KRAFT

The draft was denied because the American Wine Society has not appeared in significant publications, yet it has at least as many media mentions as the Wine & Spirits Education Trust, which has an existing page. Can you please tell me the difference?KcaslerAWS (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC) KcaslerAWS (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KcaslerAWS. Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of articles that do not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines does not mean they are wanted. It may simply mean that no one has gotten around to deleting them yet. They are not a good excuse to create more such articles. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:30:22, 22 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Interpersonalization

Hello, I am trying to create an English translation of a Russian wikipedia article, because there is not yet an English one.

Interpersonalization (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Interpersonalization. Your translation efforts are appreciated, but the draft does not yet show that the organization is notable (suitable for inclusion). Each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article may satisfy the rules for the Russian Wikipedia, but not the English one, or vice versa. More information about what is needed is on the draft, in the decline message and the reviewer's comment.
Also, if the draft has been translated from the Russian Wikipedia, you must credit the source text (otherwise it's a copyright violation). See Translating from other language Wikimedia projects for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:31, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Priyankasharmaas

please tell what about change my article please help i don't understand what i do for my article Priyankasharmaas (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Priyankasharmaas Unfortunately, your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further as it has little to no chance of being able to be improved sufficiently to meet Wikipedia standards. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia in that it is not a place to merely tell about someone; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable person). Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:54:47, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Vessnex

Vessnex (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vessnex You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate why the person you wrote about meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:38, 22 May 2020 review of submission by Haiqar888

Haiqar888 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i want to delete my draft— Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiqar888 (talk • contribs)

22:49:27, 22 May 2020 review of draft by Mel Lichtenheld

1-I couldn't give the article a page title for the person, Okhee Lee,in place of my title as the user. How can that be done? 2-I couldn't design the info box to my liking and ended up with four drafts, none of which will do. The person who is the topic of the article is an academic, and the info box needs to reflect that, similar to the info boxes in articles for Angela Duckworth or Helen Quinn.

Mel Lichtenheld (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 23

Request on 04:04:18, 23 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Roccie

Hi, I published a new article on Dr. Adrian Richard Lewis, but am having some difficulty with sources - there are a lot out their, but many are based on his employment and/or articles, documentaries, books of his own. What are the best sources to remain neutral.


Roccie (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roccie. Wikipedia does not commonly list a historian's less-than-book-length works, only their books, so I recommend removing the entire "Essays Published:" section. To demonstrate a professor's notability, the best sources are reviews, published in peer-reviewed academic journals, of their books. Two to get you started are [1] and [2]. The best places to find reviews are JSTOR, and various databases published by EBSCO and ProQuest. They may offer some degree of access to the general public, but for more, and for subject-specific databases that may be useful, use a library. Ones at major research universities will offer the most access, but large public libraries or WP:TWL may work well enough. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:39, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Vessnex

Hi I'm requesting review for this biography to help people know more and share more about Dr. Khant Kywe Soe. He's a well known person on social media, not only for his medical knowledge but also for his articles which are very knowledgealble and positive leading for people. By creating this biographic page, people can reach more about him, and contribute his articles which can lead to the mental and behavioral improving and happiness. Thanks Vessnex (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vessnex Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little to no chance it can be improved sufficiently to meet Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not just for telling about someone or promotional purposes like "help people know more and share more" about him. This is an encyclopedia, where articles about people must summarize what professionally published academic or journalistic independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Blogs and Facebook are not considered reliable sources. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk)`

07:16:39, 23 May 2020 review of draft by Preetikasingh


I want to add this line ( Lakhahi Estate ) infront of Draft name Lakhahi Raj. Means to say like this: Lakhahi Raj (Lakhahi Estate)


Preetikasingh (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preetikasingh You don't need to worry about the title of the draft, the reviewer that accepts your draft will handle that. Unless there are other articles titled Lakhani Raj you don't need a disambiguation in the title. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:51, 23 May 2020 review of submission by ToLoveAgain

ToLoveAgain (talk) 08:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:57:50, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Crickbadger

I am requesting a re-review for two reasons. Firstly with respect to notability, this is a recognised competition commemorating one of the most recognised cricketers of our time that has been going for some 20 years, involving the highest standard of school cricket. The standard of the game,the institutions involved, its sustainability and the number of representative cricketers who have played in it contribute to it’d notability. There are many more references that could be included from the institutions that participate in the competition, but to include those would be repetitive.

The reference to a COI is very confusing and incorrect. There is no ‘interest’ either for the Cowdrey Cup of Cambridge University Cricket Club in this article that creates any conflict. The relationship between the Cowdrey Cup XI matches and both Oxford and Cambridge University Crickets Clubs is a matter of fact that is documented in the references provided.

Crickbadger (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crickbadger Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it will not be considered further as there is little to no chance it will meet Wikipedia standards. You do not offer independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable event. A COI is not just about actual conflict, but a perceived conflict. If you have any association with this tournament at all or the organization that puts it on, you need to comply with WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:20, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Thakur Abishek singh chauhan

Thakur Abishek singh chauhan (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Abishek singh chauhan You don't ask a question, but a broken infobox will never be accepted as an article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:47:00, 23 May 2020 review of submission by RichardMcKee

Hi, sorry if I sound inexperienced as I am. I just submitted my first Wiki page, and as you can see, it got declined. I'm not sure what the notice means by "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)." Could you explain? Sincerely, Leii

RichardMcKee (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RichardMcKee The notice means that your draft was (in the opinion of the reviewer) lacking such sources. Please review what reliable sources are and read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:00, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Grandthinker

What is the process we should follow when someone's draft is rejected, and then they move it to articlespace themselves? Please see the history for Teatro Sá da Bandeira. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To involved parties: (GoingBatty—Theroadislong—Crystallizedcarbon—Grandthinker) I don't see where it was ever rejected. The page was created in article space, then draftified by new page patroller Crystallizedcarbon as "does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published". The author added references and moved it back to article space. WP:DRAFTIFY says that if any editor, including the author, objects to the draftification, the draftifying editor should move it back to article space. So it was reasonable for the author to move it back to article space, and that behaviour is not itself a reason for us to do anything.
Theroadislong moved it back to draft space, which was unwise. If anyone believes the topic is not notable, they should take it to AfD, not return it to draft. If the page is not so bad that it should be deleted, but is deficient in some lesser way, an editor could remove unreliable sources, remove content for which no source has been identified, affix cleanup tags, or improve it themselves. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I won't do that again, but thought it kinder than sending it to AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce, Theroadislong, Crystallizedcarbon, and Grandthinker: My apologies as well - I didn't look carefully enough to notice that Crystallizedcarbon only made a comment and did not actually reject the draft. GoingBatty (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:27, 23 May 2020 review of submission by 45.124.12.106

45.124.12.106 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further as there is little to no chance it can be improved enough to meet Wikipedia standards. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:32, 23 May 2020 review of draft by Fas et nefas

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I just had my first wiki article submission rejected for "not adequately supported by reliable sources". It's a short article about an academic philosophy journal and I think I have given sufficient sources. I have followed the template of this already published article about an academic journal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erkenntnis and given sources where necessary. Any advice on what exactly to change or how to make the sources more reliable (I link to the homepage of the journal and the institutional page of its editor-in-chief as the only external sources)?

Fas et nefas (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fas et nefas, I've approved the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:02, 23 May 2020 review of draft by Monurawal17


Monurawal17 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have Linked (Delhi)Indian Government website with Reference of subject

I got a message of decline due to independent relaible sources with inline citation not available WP:CIRCULAR

please help to resolve what should i do?

17:46:01, 23 May 2020 review of draft by Eastmeer

Hello. I am trying to create a page for Dezron Douglas -- a page exists in German Wikipedia already here. First, is there a way to merge/translate it into Wiki in English? Second, if not, I'd like to create a page for him and have submitted a draft that was denied within hours, here. I've added references as requested. Is there anything that I can do to either have this page approved OR have the German one exist in English (then I can update it)?

Thank you so much for your kind attention. I'm new to this!

Eastmeer (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eastmeer. If you are trying to create a page "for" Douglas, in other words at his behest, or that of his band, record label, publicist, etc., then you have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose. A biographical article in Wikipedia is about a person, not for them. They don't own it. They can ask for libellous material to be removed, but otherwise have almost no control over it. It may omit things they wish it included and contain material they wish it didn't.
You could ask for translation help as described at Wikipedia:Translation, but you already have a draft, so seem to have moved past the point of translation. The fact that a German article exists doesn't smooth the way for an English one. For one thing, existence doesn't prove that an article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It could mean only that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. Also, each language version of Wikipedia operates according to its own policies and guidelines, set by the community of editors who contribute there. So an article might be acceptable on the German Wikipedia but not on the English one, or vice versa.
Wikipedia, being user-generated, is not a reliable source, and citing it is circular. Remove that citation, or it will torpedo the draft. Of the draft's other sources, The New York Times piece is the best, although a bit short. The Jazz Times piece is borderline. Although not written in an interview format, a large part of it comes from what Douglas said, so it isn't entirely independent. "What's On" announcements like the Hartford Courant and other trivial coverage such as NPR and Downbeat don't help demonstrate notability. Also, two of them describe him as "rising", which is usually synonymous with "not notable" yet. While you wait for the draft to be reviewed, do your best to find better sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:50, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Ko San Lwin

Duplicate request for comment
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.



Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:30, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Ko San Lwin

Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC) May I know why my draft is rejected. I have cited articles from reliable sources. Ko San Lwin (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content included promotional puffery such as "Bella product becomes popular among local customers within the very short term, 6 months because the products are high quality and the prices are very reasonable. Some of Bella product starts from 1.3 USD (2000MMK) and the extent to more than 66USD (100,000MMK). Even the housewife working housework is using the Bella products because the beauty products become essential for every ladies, nowadays" which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:24, 23 May 2020 review of submission by Sahilfromlsa

Sahilfromlsa (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahilfromlsa: Your submission includes zero reliable sources and as such doesn't indicate the notability of that person. Since that person appears to be living, the WP:BLP rules apply in addition. I will add code to allow you tu submit now, howewer, please do not submit before you have addressed the isssiues. You may also want to read WP:YFA WP:42 for advice. Update after seeing the page history: The submission has already been rejected by @Theroadislong:. If you have sources that show that this subject indeed passes WP:NPERSON or a different notability guideline, please paste them here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

02:03:37, 24 May 2020 review of submission by Ethanznelson

I am requesting assistance on this page because I recieved many errors in creating it. It is said that this page was "advertising" but I didn't do anything of the sort. Thanks. Ethanznelson (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanznelson, High school theatre actors are not notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ethanznelson: It seemed to be "for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting" Kennedy Muir.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:24, 24 May 2020 review of submission by Johntommy988

dont get me wrong, im new to creating article, im lerning and please if there is any mistates need to be fixed Alexander Kalombedraft let me know what do i need to add so the article can be accepted? 

i followed all the requirements. about his professional career.

thank you! Johntommy988 (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johntommy988 Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, as it seems that this player does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable football player. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:46, 24 May 2020 review of submission by SJvZM

The last rejection mentions that the issues from the previous reviews are still present. However, the draft article was substantially revised to adopt the ‘formal tone’ of an encyclopedia article, removing all so-called peacock terms and taking a rigorously neutral position on creation and values of its subject matter. There is not a single point of view being expressed in the article, and citations to sources have more than doubled from the original submission. The article cannot be subsumed as a subsection under Stellenbosch University, as that would mean that each of the hundreds of departments and research projects in nine different faculties should ideally be placed under the single entry of Stellenbosch University.


SJvZM (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SJvZM: I concour that you have rewritten the draft in mayor ways, and from what I can see has Improced. I'm going to ping the reviewer if there is something specific that I haven't seen. Howewer, I want to remind you that per WP:ELNO plain external links don't belong into the body of an article. In addition, some of the sources (e.g. Dailymail) are afaik not reliable. @1292simon:Note: You are not currently listed as a reviewer, and as such are, at least according to the latter page, discouraged from reviewing AfC submissions (But from what I found it should be easy to become one for you). 15:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:38, 24 May 2020 review of submission by Bluesjuzpretty

Is this enough to be posted now?!

Bluesjuzpretty (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:13:34, 24 May 2020 review of submission by C4neo

C4neo (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Can you please help create a wikipedia page for Olivia Andem the author. Thanks

Request on 22:51:33, 24 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by ExplorerX19

I'm requesting for assistance on continuing editing a draft article on an upcoming video game calle No Straight Roads. I summited it just now, and got rejected because mainly it was too soon. I'm waiting for more info to come before or during it's release. ExplorerX19 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


ExplorerX19 (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:53, 24 May 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach

I tried to un-reject our draft and made multiple suggested substantial corrections, but for one month I did not hear anything from editors. I request re-review, because the editor who rejected the submission was unqualified (knowing nothing about the area of submission) and strongly biased in his opinions. Eeberbach (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eeberbach: who is "our"? Wikipedia accounts are single-person only. If you are affilated with the subject in any way, please comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies. Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations may be in interest as well. As for the draft, I still fail to find some lead that tells me what this is. Most of the Wikipedia articles are read by people with little or no knowlegde of the subjects (at least for my observations) and therefore should say clearly in the introduction what the article is about, e.g. Jimmy Donal "Jimbo" Wales (born August 7, 1966) is an American-British Internet entrepreneur. He is a co-founder of the online non-profit encyclopedia Wikipedia and the for-profit web hosting company Wikia. Futher, your draft currently still uses WP:PEACOCK terms, which should not be used in encyclopedic articles. I am going to ping @Sulfurboy and Theroadislong: as the last two reviewers. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S.: Accusing the reviewers of being unqualified and biased without evidence or diffs isn't exactly going to be taken to your adventage.)
As per my previous comments the lede section still very clearly fails to establish what the subject is even about. Until the draft is written in an understandable format it is not likely to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's also very serious WP:OR, WP:TONE and WP:NOTESSAY concerns with the article. Your unwarranted accusations of "unqualified" and "strongly biased" are churlish and baseless. I guarantee every reviewer here would have declined this and many would have rejected it. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

02:02:53, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Belachow

Hi! I have edit out some parts which might seems not in a neutral tone, can you please tell me are the references appropriate? And what more I can do to get it publish. My boss has been nagging me about always failing in making this wiki page, I am very frustrated and tired of this, I am apparently a COI but he just doesn't care. Please let me know what more I can do! Many thanks!!!! Belachow (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:22:58, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Glammazon

Glammazon (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a review because l finally did correct the External References section and even added a new reference.

Most of the references are still returning 404 codes. Looks like they are one-time-urls. The only url I was able to access was https://www.digitalcomicmuseum.com/index.php?cid=51, which I archived to prevent more dead urls. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:08, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Nycinuk


Hello have just added another reference to this development as I just saw it (Musicweek)- still not clear when this article is not being approved.

Also not clear why I am being accused of being paid to create this article?

Suggest an editor googles outernet london to verify the notability

Thanks for your help!

Nycinuk (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nycinuk The reason for the decline has been given to you in the draft several times: "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." Additional comments have been left by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:27, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Shanisun

Shanisun (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shanisun You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning it will not be considered further. Please review the reasons given by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:19, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Checkmate149

i submitted this article for creation of a new wiki page and was told it doesnt deserve an article. this individual started an edtech platform which has around 100k users in tanzania, he was the 18th most influential young tanzanian out of 50 in 2019 beating the likes of senior government officials like the regional commisioner, Mr. Paul Makonda. there are tens of articles on his work and tens of health articles he has written for the biggest newspaper in the country, The Citizen. the name is Ali Khatau. he is a medical doctor at agakhan hospital and is the chief medical intern plus the head of postgraduate applications among the interns. please google that name and look him up. hes won many awards and many article features in different reliable websites. i dont think the reviewer took enough time to go through the citations we attached to the article. if he had done so, he would have seen the tremendous work this individual is doing in tanzania. i dont blame the reviewer as i understand the large amount of articles needing reviewing for wiki everyday. please review this article and especially the links/citations and do advise. if you still think he doesnt deserve a wiki page, ill respect your decision and wont pursue it further, but i strongly believe he does based on current citations attached. Checkmate149 (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on Draft:Ali Khatau. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:41, 25 May 2020 review of submission by ToLoveAgain

Please re-review this page about Kit David Torres and what is needed for it to be approved. All the references needed were already given which are all viewable via internet - both in UK and Philippines news. Please give regard and take into consideration. Thank you.

ToLoveAgain (talk) 10:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToLoveAgain Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It seems that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:25, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Uros77

Hi, I tried to follow all of your recommendations. I hope you can review it again and see if it is a good fit now. :)

Thank you.

Best, Uroš

Uros77 (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Uros77#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:10, 25 May 2020 review of submission by 27.123.142.39

27.123.142.39 (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft you created was only an introductory sentence about yourself. Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves, this is an encyclopedia. Please read the autobiography policy for more information. If you want a user page where you can tell the Wikipedia community a little about yourself in the context of your Wikipedia editing or use, you may create an account. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:52, 25 May 2020 review of submission by PTEKNI

My article submission has declined, I would be grateful, if you could provide me some information about the reasons. PTEKNI (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PTEKNI You were given the reasons for the decline by the reviewer on the draft. Do you have questions about those reasons? 331dot (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:41, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Samantha Herbst


Samantha Herbst (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm looking for help with the Paid Contributor template.

I recently submitted a Draft article which was reviewed and declined. I have since amended the issues that the editor had with the article sources and included the Paid Contributor template to my talk page. Please can you advise if I have done everything correctly and whether it is safe to resubmit my article.

My submission: Draft: Mint Group

Samantha Herbst (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Herbst Your draft seems to be sourced to nothing but press releases or other routine business announcements, which are primary sources that do not establish that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it, with independent reliable sources who have chosen on their own to give a subject significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Since it was reviewed, however, I have taken out all references to press releases and only included articles run by reputable news agencies and industry journals. These publications would not have published under duress and definitely did so independently... Does it really still look otherwise to you (a genuine question)?

Can you confirm how many times I am allowed to submit and revise? And if my Paid Contributor template is correct on my talk page?

Thank you for your assistance.

Samantha Herbst (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Herbst Your draft is ALL pure marketing puffery "workspace optimisation aimed at empowering the international workforce" "has worked to expand its service offering over the years" "a global services provider that assists clients" "to offer the South African industry a comprehensive set of integrated IT solutions" is all totally inappropriate content and so is the rest. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I could really use some help here. Asking me to "please stop" on my draft is not helpful. Would whittling this piece way down to the bare bones be more appropriate? I'm really doing my best to understand what exactly Wikipedia is looking for here. I changed the sources, would you be willing to have a look if I whittled down the language?

Samantha Herbst (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samantha Herbst: Wikipedia explicitly excludes trade rags ("industry journals") such as ITWeb and its Alpha and Brainstorm publications, MS Dynamics World, Microsoft Care GH, IT Online, and Engineer IT from sources that can demonstrate notability, because of their narrow audience and often too-cozy relationship with companies in the industry they cover. Using the wrong kind of sources is probably part of why it's so nauseating to read. The draft still does nothing to show that the company is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. What is Wikipedia looking for? It's not looking for an article about this company. Consider alternative outlets with different inclusion criteria for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:16:48, 25 May 2020 review of draft by 2A00:23C7:9C81:CB01:5B:32A3:CFA3:4ECE


Hi

I really fear that this is not being looked at objectively but out of some misguided attempt to make some sort of point.

I am trying to address all possible reasons for not approving this post. Let's go through them all and then the actual post and perhaps you could help (as I believe this is a help desk?) and tell me what you feel needs to be changed.

1. I am not being paid to post this content. You asked me to make a statement saying this and I have already made this statement on one of my earlier requests for help on this help desk. I do not work for the organisation in question but I walk past the site every working day and I'm a journalist (not connected to any of the citations) and don't understand why this is not on Wikipedia.

2. The site is notable. It's a major development in the heart of world famous city. There are public spaces and facilities. There has been lots of press coverage. There is lots of local talk about it. It includes Denmark Street which if you know anything about music is world famous (see it's Wikipedia entry). Google it if you doubt any of this.

3. Now let's turn to the actual proposed entry. As mentioned several requests for helps back there is no hyperbole or exaggerated claims. I have simply put together a narrative about the site based on sources I have found by googling as I satisfy me curiosity. The reason there are so many citations are a) because it appears to be written about quite a lot (because it is a big thing in London) and b) because several of the previous rejections have asked for more sources. I fail to see what better references can be provided than editorial coverage in the UK mainstream press and broadcast media. Have you even looked at the citations? They are "a range of independent, reliable, published sources" - none of whom I work for.

So let's go through it:

--> Outernet London is the name of a mixed use development currently under construction in the West End of London.

It is. Not promotional.


--> Construction follows more than a decade of planning.[1]

True - the future of the site has been a source of much discussion for anyone who knows the area. Also covered in citations. Not promotional.


--> The site is adjacent to the new Crossrail Tottenham Court Road/Charing Cross Road southern exit and runs across Denmark Street - “Tin Pan Alley” with St Giles High Street to the east and Charing Cross Road to the west.

This is correct. Not promotional.


--> To protect against vibration from from Crossrail and Northern line tunnels special construction methods have been used. [2]

So is this. Added to give even more context. Not promotional.


--> The development is due to open in 2020.[3]

What the coverage and hoardings on the site say. Not promotional.


--> It will feature many areas and facilities available to the general public including a 2,000 capacity music venue, a gallery, broadcasting and media facilities, a hotel, bars and restaurants.[4]

All factual as far as I can see. Confirmed by several of the cited sources. Presumably this is useful or do you deem this promotional?


--> The public spaces will feature a number of high resolution video screens [5] [6] including the "World's largest LED screen deployment".[7] [8] Announcements have been made that there will be advertising campaigns using virtual reality [9], augmented reality [10] and artificial intelligence. [11] News reports have indicated that entertainment will be created by Technicolor[12] [13] [14] and Sir Ridley's Scott's the Ridley Scott Creative Group.[15] [16] [17] There will also be residential apartments [18] office space [19] and 20,000 sq ft of retail space[20]. The area immediately surrounding Outernet is also under development from Crossrail and other projects. By 2021 when all these projects complete the Oxford Street shopping area will have undergone significant renewal.[21] [22]

This is all based on what I have read and would seem - to me - to explain why the whole site is notable over and above where it is. Surely the largest outdoor screens in the world are notable? Is saying what the site will contain promotional? A lot of this has been added since my first draft because more references keep on being asked for. It is all factual and based on citations. If you object to any of this part please explain why and which bits?

--> The site includes Denmark Street which is being redeveloped as part of the project. Denmark Street has been synonymous with music in London[23] and has traditionally featured music equipment shops and live music related nightlife. The street is nicked named London's Tin Pan Alley.[24]

This is correct, gives context and completely factual. Not promotional.


--> The redevelopment as part of Outernet has been welcomed by London's Night Czar Amy Lame [25] but the redevelopment has been controversial [26] and also criticised with many commentators lamenting [27] the decline of live music in London [28] and criticising the redevelopment plans. [29] [30] [31]

Also true - citations all evidence this. Not promotional.

--> Outernet London have said they will preserve the music legacy and support live music.[32] It is reported that the redeveloped Denmark Street will featuring busking points and a pro-bono recording studio.[33]

Also true - citations all evidence this. Not promotional.

--> The main construction contractor for the project is Skanska[34] and the developer is Consolidated Developments [35] [36]

Also true - citations all evidence this. Not promotional.


Please advise which parts "read like an advert" to you and how you like those parts written to not "read like an advert" in your eyes. Please also advise which of the citations you seem to think I have written and are not "independent, reliable, published sources"

Thank you. 2A00:23C7:9C81:CB01:5B:32A3:CFA3:4ECE (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you editing whilst logged out? Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:24, 25 May 2020 review of draft by DIP UZH

Is it possible to help improve this article according to standard or article can not be published Thanks so much DIP UZH (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DIP UZH what struvk me about the draft is the many claims without sources, so I will place tags where it needs references. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank You so much for advise. Citations done. You can see the draft text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DIP UZH (talk • contribs) 15:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:04, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Գարիկ Ավագյան


Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article goes through "Wikipedia:Notability (music)" at least, for these two:

"3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network."

Why it was declined? Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect the reviewer failed to find the WP:THREE in the draft. From what I see, some sources in the draft dont appear to be reliable (at least Amazon is afaik not reliable). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:44, 25 May 2020 review of draft by Nycinuk


Have updated further in response to feedback - note if you look at other similar developments that have entries like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Yards_(development) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shard (which are both obviously bigger entries as those sites are now complete) they are written in a similar style.

Nycinuk (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycinuk: Please see WP:OSE for why its often not a good argument to cite other articles for the existence of yours. Howewer, it appears good now from what I see. @reviewers, If I missed something, it would be glad if you highlighted the problematic text in some way. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:10, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Michaelbeijer

Hi there, I know very little about how WikiPedia works technically (so excuse me if I am being naive), but I have a question about why the article about CafeTran (the CAT tool) is continually being rejected, when most of the other CAT tools DO have their own articles. This seems a bit odd, if you ask me.

All the other big CAT tools have their own pages:

… so what is so different about CafeTran?

On my Talk page, User:Sulfurboy, said: "Most recent submission was done with zero improvements which is considered WP:GAMING they system.". I didn't intend to try to game the system, just wanted to show my support for the idea of creating a page for CafeTran too, since it is one of the translation industry's most important CAT tools currently. Heck, the biggest online portal for translators in the world (Proz.com) is even offering it as part of its extended subscription package, so how the software can't be notable is really beyond me.

It looks to me like the people continually rejecting it are not familiar with the translation industry at all, otherwise they would immediately recognise that it is indeed perfectly notable. Rejecting it smacks of academic pedantry, iyam.

Michael, the problem is that you (or someone) resubmitted the article for inclusion without making the requested changes. The more people resubmit the page without making the changes that the senior editors think they have requested, the less likely it is that the article is every going to be accepted. I have spent a lot of time and effort and have done a great deal and went through a lot of trouble trying to comply with AngusWOOF's initial requests. Resubmitting the article without attempting to comply with e.g. Theroadislong's request, shows bad faith (even though that may not have been intended). SamHolt6 made additional requests, and although I had thought that I had fully complied with it, clearly something else was still wrong. So, at least you (or whoever resubmitted the page this time) could have taken Theroadislong's request about removing Youtube links seriously. I'm not sure which of the links are considered "blog posts", although there is one link that has the word "blog" in it, so that one could easily have been removed before resubmitting the page. The sad thing is that the information in the article does not even rely on the Youtube links -- all but one of the Youtube links were *secondary* citations, and removing them would not have left great pieces of content unreferenced. I will ask "advice" and ask that we are told which links are considered "blog post" links, and remove the Youtube links, but I fear the damage is done. Once senior editors get it into their heads that a topic is non-notable, there are very few windows of opportunity to get the page "in" again. -- leuce (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:12, 25 May 2020 review of submission by CupOfTeaGossip


what am i doing wrong? Eat Your Heart Out Ent 19:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi CupOfTeaGossip. Your submission reads like a product announcement, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia may not be used for any form of advertising, promotion, or public relations. Novice editors usually find it easier to build up experience editing existing articles before trying to create a new one. See Wikipedia:Community portal for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:04:41, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Squaduser

Hello, I've been inserting the references manually following the guideline in every step. The draft was declined because I didn't use the reftoolbar templates. Should I edit the draft by inserting all the references through the templates? Thank you Squaduser (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Squaduser. The draft should not have been declined or rejected for that reason. You do not have to do anything differently with regard to how the references are inserted or formatted. However, the reviewer raised a second issue that you have not addressed. It would be helpful if you would explain in a few words on your user page the nature of your connection to Erik Stark and what your interest is in editing Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Worldbruce. Thank you for your advice, I've been writing on my user page about my interest in editing Wikipedia and my connection with Erik Stark and the powerboat racing world. I hope this might help. Thanks

21:39:14, 25 May 2020 review of submission by Eeberbach

I agree that any Wikipedia reader does not need any knowledge of the submission area to read and have personal opinion about it (the only damage will be that not everything will be understood and appreciated by such reader). However, this should exclude the editors who reject/accept the articles, i.e., they have the decision power - the editors should have such knowledge, otherwise they produce their personal and biased (by lack of knowledge) opinion which is very consequential for the author of the submission. And exactly this I experienced with the editor who rejected my submission knowing technically nothing about the area of submission (this follows directly from his comments, what is easy to prove). Thus that editor should prove rather that he knows at least something from the area - not me (I proved that rich by per-reviewed publication record in the area of submission). The person without knowledge of the area of submission should not have the decision power. Eeberbach (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that English is not your first language and perhaps this is part of the problem with your draft? Perhaps you would be better advised editing in the Wikipedia of your own language initially? The help desk isn't really the place to suggest major changes in the way that drafts are reviewed, you could visit Wikipedia:Village pump where new proposals are discussed? Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

04:57:31, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Margaret Chung

Margaret Chung (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


04:57:31, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Margaret Chung


06:07:56, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Editorlanpao

Editorlanpao (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editorlanpao You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further as there is little to no chance it can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. It does not appear that the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable director, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:03:09, 26 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Vishak Vijayan 05

It was just an information post. Was just trying to educate the users about the software.

Vishak Vijayan 05 (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vishak Vijayan 05 Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, that is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please review Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:32:41, 26 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachi1307


Sachi1307 (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:08, 26 May 2020 review of draft by Saadstockholm


Hello, I dont understand why this subject was declined? What criteria's does not this journalist meet? Can you please describe the issue here and what I need to do?

Saadstockholm (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all written by him, Wikipedia requires independent sources written by people unconnected to him. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:54, 26 May 2020 review of draft by TheBirdsShedTears

Please review this draft. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: This is not going to happen. We dont operate on deadlines. You submitted your draft today There are 732 other submissions awaiting review, most of which are waiting longer. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:21, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Trashfan

Lionel Baldenweg is a member of the composer trio Diego Baldenweg with Nora Baldenweg & Lionel Baldenweg. This individual page was mainly created for the purpose of finding Lionel Baldenweg in his categories (australian film score composers, male film score composers etc.). Thank you for helping to finalise this article in any way. Trashfan (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trashfan (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trashfan. The correct way to achieve the desired effect is not a new article, but a redirect from Lionel Vincent Baldenweg to the trio. The redirect may then be categorized as described in WP:INCOMPATIBLE. I've done this for you. He now appears in the "B" section of Category:Australian male composers, for example. You may do the same for the other members of the trio. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:45:44, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Ramzy Arbid

Ramzy Arbid (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:45:44, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Ramzy Arbid


14:08, 26 May 2020 Yunshui talk contribs blocked Ramzy Arbid talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ({{OversightBlock}}) Nothing left to see here. @Ramzy Arbid: you might want to read Wikipedia:Advice for younger editors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:56, 26 May 2020 review of submission by Mickane


Hey, thanks for the help. Today, i just had my first article published. The problem is when i google search for the person from the article, or google search the person with wiki after their name, nothing shows.

The only way i can navigate to the wikipedia page is access the wikipedia website and do a manual search.

I have read it might be something to do with indexing and an article had to be patrolled before indexing is allowed, it's all so confusing. Ive idea what it means.

Could someone kindly tell me how i would get the article made about an athlete, show up on when i did a google search of the person?

Please and Thanks

Michael Kane (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kane (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked the article as reviewed, so when Google next crawls the page it will appear in the search. As you have a declared conflict of interest any future editing should be restricted to suggestions made on the articles talk page. Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:19, 26 May 2020 review of submission by 2605:E000:1529:8653:6DAF:9E4D:DF3A:B2AC

I respectfully request that you reconsider your decision as the subject deemed not important enough is referred to on other Wikipedia pages, inlcuding this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice,_Los_Angeles#Historic_post_office.

2605:E000:1529:8653:6DAF:9E4D:DF3A:B2AC (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A passing mention in another Wikipedia article, confers no notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May 27

00:01:10, 27 May 2020 review of draft by Mtrayyubi


Mtrayyubi (talk)

01:25:06, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Bmantha

We received a message from reviewer --' Your submission at Articles for creation: Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam has been accepted. But this is not seen in the general search wikipage . When this article gets visible in search ..Bmantha Bmantha (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bmantha. I'm not sure what you mean by "the general search wikipage". Biodiversity Park, Visakhapatnam is visible from https://www.wikipedia.org/, which is the most general Wikipedia search page. Perhaps you mean external search engines such as Google, Bing, Yandex, etc. When the article is patrolled (the timing of which you have no control over) it will be released for indexing by search engines. Whether and when search engines actually index it is beyond the control of Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:51:13, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Mtrayyubi

Mtrayyubi (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:14:39, 27 May 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

SONGEZO SA (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SONGEZO SA As suggested already, you need to show how the subject meets the criteria of WP:NMUSIC.Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:38, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Molee4real

Molee4real (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Please I have correct some errors in the article so I would like someone to review it and help me to re arrange it please.[reply]


12:32:07, 27 May 2020 review of draft by EnricoFlx


Hello everyone,

Thank you in advance for the feedback on the draft. From now on, I'll handle the draft on J. Howaldt. I noticed that the criticism mentioned above (secondary sources about the subject) is missing on other Wikipedia articles as well, even from comparable persons (other sociologists or economists). Especially among scientists, their relevance and position in the scientific community is determined by the quality and number of scientific publications that are presented in this draft. I would be pleased if the article in its current form meets the requirements for Wikipedia. Otherwise I am happy about any kind of help and will develop a new draft.

stay healthy!


EnricoFlx (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EnricoFlx: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many articles were created before we began the ridiculous AfC process. Howewer, with 7,028,044 total articles, its impossible to monitor them all constantely. We can only act on things we know about. If you find other pages you think are equally inappopiate, please mention them so we can take action. As for your draft:
So we are left of with no references that qualify for establishing notability. Please read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EnricoFlx (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you for your detailed answer. I will try to meet the requirements. User:EnricoFlx (talk) 9:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

18:54:21, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Tom in Vastervik

Dear sir , please help I'm new on Wikipedia and i made a atempt to get an article about my car published in/on Wikipedia, but it was not accepted , due to missing reliable sources (RS) . But as I discribed below is the car so unik and not known to the general publik that RS can not been found within Wikipedia or other sources.

Quoting previous dialog with one of your editors:

Lenham-Hurst GTR Dear sir, thanks for the promt reply regarding my article about my car, I understad that you was requesting (RS) reliable sources ( fully understandable ) . #1 Concerning technical data on the car , I presume present owner (my self) and registration certificate would be considered as RS.

2 Regarding history and the story about this unik car, would I ref. A, an article in https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/june-1996/54/no-lemon-lenham where my car was described B When I made investigation about the background of my car I was able to locate a fellow who actually worked on the Lenham factory when my car was manufactured !His name is Mr Allan Hebb and his mail are (redacted) . He been very helfull to me, and can sure confirm my statements. Best regards Tom Karlsson Vastervik Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom in Vastervik (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Tom in Vastervik, first point: NEVER share personal information about others (like emails). Such things are strictly prohibited. Second point: your car isn't notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia since your car isn't mentioned in reliable sources independent of the subject. JavaHurricane 03:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC) Dear Sir, so sorry abt my mistake , did not understand how "public" this chat was in fact, I'm new on Wikipedia and not that familiar with the language. Please note that this car is a part of British sportcar history, it's only builded in one example and not known to the public, it bin hidden away for more than 40 years, and now has my renovation of the car created curiosity in the motorworld , several magazine has asked to make reportage , and linked to this Wikipedia could be very helpful to get the fact's right. I personally love to check Wikipedia for fact's about odd items. So my humble question to you to reconsider your decision not to public an atricle in Wicipedia. Best Regards Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom in Vastervik (talk • contribs) 10:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So what is next step, please advise me Best regards Tom Karlsson Vastervik Sweden

Tom in Vastervik (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:49, 27 May 2020 review of submission by 2604:3D09:AC82:AB00:AD7A:FB77:8117:EF7B

me 2604:3D09:AC82:AB00:AD7A:FB77:8117:EF7B (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:49:23, 27 May 2020 review of submission by 72.160.148.206

72.160.148.206 (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:50:19, 27 May 2020 review of submission by Nashvillelotus

Nashvillelotus (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The author changed the infobox after the draft was rejected, and one of the reasons for the rejection was that the infobox was a hoax because it identified the subject as a member of the United States House of Representatives, which would have political notability. As mayor of a city of 65,000, the subject does not have political notability, and the draft does not satisfy general notability. Putting false information in infoboxes is not a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

03:32:09, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Khetarpals.a

Khetarpals.a (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i dont understand why is it said that I have violated the copyright. The article published on soolegal is written by me only, and I published the article there also. So how does this violate any copyright.

@Khetarpals.a: If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy, you can license that text so that it can be republished elsewhere. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Even if you are able to establish a compatible license, it likely will be impossible to use the text here. Material on that website has been written to encourage the hiring of an immigration attorney, a purpose which is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia. Writing an encyclopedia article is an entirely different undertaking. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:10, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Terminalbud

I am requesting a re-review of this article because the reasons given for it being declined feels both vague and simply untrue. First of all it states I did not add sources after the second review, which i did and even made sure to write in the details of in the editing log. Second of all, it says it sounds like a biography, i have just followed the way other biographies have been written on Wikipedia, but i personally don't know miss Iversen, so if the reviewer is indicating that I am not reliable enough to write this article because i don't actually know her then fair enough, but i was under the impression that anyone can write articles about someone as long as the sources of information is legit. and everything i have found for this article is directly translated from online articles and magazines i have found and they are all added linked in the source section. Terminalbud (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Terminalbud: Between the second review on 5 March and the reject on 9 May, you made two edits to the draft. Those edits did not add any sources. What you say above is simply untrue.
The problems identified in the first two reviews have not been fixed. The first section, for example, cites IMDB and an article in Halden Arbeiderblad. IMDb, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. The Halden Arbeiderblad article supports only that she graduated from NISS in 2011-2012, which is a small part of the section. If you aren't being employed by Iversen to write this, then reviewers will wonder where you got information like: "Iversen grew up on the countryside of Norway before she moved to the City Trondheim where she studied ... from 2007 to 2009. This is also where she started her hosting career as a main host for the weekly show, created for and by students, Student Magasinet."
Six of the inline citations are split between Halden Arbeiderblad and Kampanje [no]. Possibly they could form the foundation of a draft. But the remaining citations do nothing to establish notability. Seven are to TV2 and NRK Radio, which are her employers, so not independent (they have a vested interest in promoting her). VGTV is an interview without analysis by the interviewer, it's Iversen in Iversen's words, so not independent. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:07:59, 28 May 2020 review of submission by 70.59.84.88

70.59.84.88 (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:08:54, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Abhinavsidharth

Can I know which of the citations are reliable and which of them I should take off? Also, how many more reliable citations do I need? Abhinavsidharth (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:47, 28 May 2020 review of submission by LuckyAnimations

Because It is my favorite movie and there is no info about it, anywhere. You ca only see it in the cinemas. LuckyAnimations (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyAnimations: If there's no info about it, then it's not notable. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:13, 28 May 2020 review of submission by 2A02:587:DC14:8500:3D09:D167:1416:1B90

Hey I want to know why want to delete the Vasileios Diagoumas article? If you search on the internet you will see many articles of that person, please answer me so I can know what you think

The page hasn't been deleted yet. The submission was declined because the submission didn't indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Note that many Youtubers dont meet them. You can read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:13, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Dbloom81

Hi, I was looking for some help. My article got rejected with the comment that Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION or WP:ADVERTISEMENT - I crafted my page around this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harris_Beach. The company this linked article is about is also a law firm, and I structured it in a very similar way. I was wondering what that article does differently versus what I did, and what I have to change to get my article accepted. All help in this regard would be greatly appreaciated! Dbloom81 (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:24:11, 28 May 2020 review of submission by 27.4.7.178

27.4.7.178 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC) {{SAFESUBST:Void|}just give me few more changes to make please to all administrators. Let me Put all relevant sources once again please . And do help me with it requesting all[reply]

14:27:29, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Swasti Salecha

Because I am not given any particular reason as to why my article is rejected. Please explain me and share the details since I am doing all this for the first time. Swasti Salecha (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because it is a blatant advertisement sourced to their own website. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See further the answer I gave at the Teahouse. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:31:42, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Tauqir baig

Tauqir baig (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tauqir baig: This isn't even close to being an article. Please note that Wikipedia is not a social network. You can read WP:YFA for information about writing your first article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:20, 28 May 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA

SONGEZO SA (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:43:02, 28 May 2020 review of draft by RoyBuchanan


Hello! I am trying to create a basic Wiki page for the 112 Drive-In movie theater in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Doing so would start the process of beginning to link to it on other Wiki pages that list remaining drive-in theaters in America (there are only about 330 left in the country), so it can be easily found by people seeking such information. My submission was rejected, and I was told, "The sources you currently have don't demonstrate any particular importance." However, I feel as though the establishment itself — which is the oldest remaining drive-in in the state, and one of only three left in the entire state — demonstrates particular importance in and of itself, due to its rarity, and that needing to provide such a description from a source, which I am unable to find via Google Books, local/state media, etc., will keep me from creating the page.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

RoyBuchanan (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoyBuchanan: first of all, your draft was declined, not rejected. I am going to ping the reviewer, @Sam-2727: as I am not that comfortable with special notability stuff like here. Howewer, for the sources of your draft:
  • #1 appears to be a directory listing, I am unsure if its reliable but most are not
  • #2 could be useable
  • #3 is a book I wasn't able to check right now, but it could be. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RoyBuchanan all of what Victor Schmidt says is correct. #3 I would doesn't indicate notability because it's a list of drive in theaters in the United States. Surely not every drive in theater is notable or deserves a Wikipedia article! If it is indeed a "rarity" then there are likely news articles that discuss it in the depth. Looking up "112 drive-in" (with quotes) on google finds plenty of sources. Just add these sources and you should be good to go. An interesting direction you could take here is mentioning the drive-in theater during COVID-19. It seems that there are a lot of news articles online that discuss that. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can of course submit your article again once you add these sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:51, 28 May 2020 review of draft by S.elrefaie


S.elrefaie (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S.elrefaie: your draft currently does not establish how this subject meets WP:NMUSIC. You have a single non-independent source linked. We require at least three reliable, independent sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:24:25, 28 May 2020 review of submission by 2601:646:4201:AE40:75D7:9382:98A7:2403

2601:646:4201:AE40:75D7:9382:98A7:2403 (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The topic is notable enough, as it is searchable on all streaming platforms, and you can find It on many social media sites. There is also already a Google knowledge panel on the topic.

Social media networks are not eigible for establishing notability. Please read WP:42 for what wikipedia looks for. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:45:54, 28 May 2020 review of submission by BristolAlex

Hello, my submission of this draft was declined. It said it's not "qualified" and doesn't meet the formal tone. The draft is a 1:1-translation from the German article about the same person, which was approved and is online for quite a while now. I know that the two Wikipedias are different things, nevertheless I don't have a clue what to improve. IMO it is written in a formal, neutral tone and every detail has got a reference to it. Thank you very much for your help.

BristolAlex (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BristolAlex Non neutral content includes "the saxophonist with the famous german musician", "participated on the highly successful albums", "at the renowned", "taking place in the sold-out „Stadthalle Sigmaringen", " multifaceted and versatile". Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:57, 28 May 2020 review of submission by Coder196

The page has been substantially revised to meet Wikipedia's rules. Please re-review and provide advice. Thank you! Coder196 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=959433352"