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 Dupontdupontdupont (talk | contribs) at 09:19, 3 June 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 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]

Hi Abhinavsidharth. None of the citations are to independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of the company; all of them should be removed. The draft doesn't need a greater quantity of citations. The topic would need higher quality citations to demonstrate notability (suitability for inclusion in the encyclopedia). The reviewer's analysis is that no good sources exist, so no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable, and volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:04, 1 June 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

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

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]

Hello, Dbloom81, The Harris Beach article was an unfortunate choice of model -- it is tagged as being promotional, and its notability has been challenged. it may be significantly rewritten or even deleted in the near future.
The key issue here is notability (a term which Wikipedia uses in a special sence. See our guideline o9n the notability of companies and WP:CORPDEPTH. In general an article should demonstrate the notability of the topic by including citations to multiple independent published reliable sources that each discuss the topic in some depth and detail. In the current draft:
  • ref 1 is to the firms o0wn web site -- not independent.
  • Ref 2 is to bestlawfirms, which ranks firms but gives no details -- no significant coverage.
  • Ref 3 is to a Rochester Business Journal article behind a paywall, so I cannot evaluate it. But it would be only one source at best.
  • Ref 4 is to a list of articvles written by (not about) a firm member in the NY Daily Record -- not independent, and no significant coverage of the firm.
  • Ref 5 is the same as ref 4, for a different member of the firm
In short, none of these (except possibly the Rochester Business Journal article, has anything to demonstrate the notability oif this firm. News coverage or other independent writing about (no9t by) the firm would be needed. Not blogs, not passing mentions or directory entries, and not anything based on PR from the firm.
The secondary issue here is promotion. The lists (with no detail) of areas of practice and office locations do not add much to the encyclopedic value of teh text, and do have a flavo9r of promotion. The areas of practice in particular should probably go, unless there are noted achievements in some of them that are discussed by indentation sources in some detail. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:27, 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]


19:27:17, 28 May 2020 review of submission by মোছাঃ নূরুন্নাহার


মোছাঃ নূরুন্নাহার (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@মোছাঃ নূরুন্নাহার: Draft6:Nurunnahar does not cite any independent sources There is nothing in it to indicate that the subject is notable. In particular it does not indicate that this person comes close to meeting the criteria in our guideline on notability for actors or our general notability guideline. Most professional actors are not notable, and will not have Wikipedia articles. Unless there are multiple, professionally published reliable sources that each discuss Nurunnahar in depth and that are independent of him, or unless he fulfills one of the other criteria of WP:NACTOR (which does not seem to be the case) he is not notable at this time, and there will not be an accepted article, no matter how it is written. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

05:26:21, 29 May 2020 review of submission by Kary591995

Hello everyone there is a channel on YouTube named as "Kdt cool games" it deals with the tutorial of how to play a certain game and it also include gameplay. Kary591995 (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:50:06, 29 May 2020 review of draft by Cirinsusaki


Hello, My article has been dismissed for the following reason : This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

I used Japanese sources, that I translated myself from Wikipedia and the sources shown in the Japanese page. Unfortunately except Japanese sources, there are no English sources on the Internet. Are Japanese sources not seen as "reliable sources"?

Thank you in advance, Cirinsusaki

Cirinsusaki (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:05, 29 May 2020 review of submission by 70.59.84.88


70.59.84.88 (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:13:47, 29 May 2020 review of submission by 70.59.84.88

can you please check my draft 70.59.84.88 (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop asking. This is the third time in two days that you asked about this draft. Note to other reviewers: based on this question and the draft's history I suspect the IP to be a sockpuppet of the User:Adam Naa-complex. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:41, 29 May 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA


SONGEZO SA (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SONGEZO SA You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little to no chance that it can be improved enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. Please review the advice you were given by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:39:47, 29 May 2020 review of draft by Uros77


Hi,

I would need help to get my draft reviewed. Im not sure if everything is okay and as it should be. I did everything I was suggested. Can you help me? :)

Uros77 (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:50:18, 29 May 2020 review of draft by Benedict2005


Hello this is Benedict2005, and I am requesting help to deliver a message to the reviewers of wikipedia regarding my Draft Article "Baldivis Secondary college" I am a student who attends Baldivis Secondary College and have gathered as much information of the school to the draft article. Is it possible that because i attend there and have gathered as much information regarding the school to the article, that i also prove that my referencing are not just non-noteable and just passing mentions? I have gathered as much information regarding the college and im certain that there is no Bias, nor false information. Thank you. Benedict2005 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:08, 29 May 2020 review of submission by 87.238.210.51


87.238.210.51 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:05:59, 29 May 2020 review of draft by Saitoti Torome


Saitoti Torome (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:56, 29 May 2020 review of draft by 1freedom


Hallo, I want to create the english wikipedia site for filmdirector, acrtress Mo Asumang. She already has a german and frensh site. Since I do not see the site published yet I am not sure if I worked correct. Would you be so kind and give me a short feedback, thanx. Bye for now, 1freedom

1freedom (talk) 14:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 1freedom. Draft:Mo Asumang has not yet been submitted for review, so it hasn't been reviewed. But if it were submitted as it now stands it would not be accepted. The draft does not cite any sources at all, and it does not in any way establish that Asumang is Notable. Please understand that Wikipedia uses the term "notable" in a special technical sense, follow the link for details. The most common way to establish a person's notability is to find and cite multiple (usually at least 3) independent professionally published reliable sources that discuss the person in some depth and detail. This means no blogs, no fan or personal sites, and nothing written by the person or her employer or buisness associates, or based on a press release. it also means that directory entries, and brief mentions in discussions of other matters, film credits without critical comment, and the like, are of no value in establishing notability. Please follow the blue links for details. Please find and add sources that are independent of Asumang, reliable, and discuss her in detail before submitting this for review.
Please understand that having an article on the German and French language editions of Wikipedia in no way qualifies a person for an article on the English-language edition -- the projects are separate, with different polices and customs. Nor can the other Wikipedia articles be used as sources, although sources cited in them can often be used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1freedom: (edit conflict) First of all, all different Wikipedia languages are different projects with their own set of rules, so the existence of an article in one project cannot be cited as an argument for the existence in another. For your draft:
  • It currently cites zero reliable sources and therefore fails the verifiability policy.
  • It makes excessive use of links. Please only link the important stuff where a link will be usefull for the reader
  • "brave" is WP:PUFFERY and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. We want to maintain a neutral point of view.
  • I have fixed the image transclusion for you. Here on enwiki, you use "File:" instead of "Datei:" and "thumb" instead of "mini". The latter ones are project-specific (here for the german wikipedia) while the former work global.
I am going to link you User:Ian.thomson/Howto, a guide on how to write articles that wont be declined, rejected or deleted. Since your draft is only one sentence so far, there isn't much to save. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:52:41, 29 May 2020 review of submission by Daimen Carter (Musician)


Daimen Carter (Musician) (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my article was not approved. I need further help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daimen_Carter_(Musician)

@Victorysriram: Assuming this is about Draft:Daimen Carter (Musician), blogs and forums are not reliable sources and stuff written by the subject or someone affilated with the subject also don't help to establish notability. Note that if you are affilated with the subject in anyway or are compensated or expect compensation for your edits there are some declarations to make. The latter would be a Terms of Use requirement. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:42, 29 May 2020 review of submission by 2405:204:301D:AE95:E475:C90:CA0A:53A6


2405:204:301D:AE95:E475:C90:CA0A:53A6 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Jaihind , ?? India's leading newspaper

20:05:32, 29 May 2020 review of draft by Mtennysdotter


Can someone please look over my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darren_Prince and give me some feedback? I feel stuck at what else to add.

Mtennysdotter (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


May 30

00:08:09, 30 May 2020 review of draft by Mtennysdotter


Not sure how to proceed or what to add. Thought I wrote the article objective but getting feedback that it's not. Can someone help me improve it? It's my first one I do. Mtennysdotter (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Mtennysdotter#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:12:39, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Chicago20092016


The page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fengqi_You) has been substantially revised to meet Wikipedia's rules. It is significantly shorten, and all possible violations to copyrights are removed. Could you please re-review and provide advice? Thank you!

Chicago20092016 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:British Nuclear Medicine Society

01:13:42, 30 May 2020 review of draft by Earthianyogi


Hi, This article has been declined three times, and I am not sure why it does not fulfil the notability requirements. I have read this wiki link: Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:British_Nuclear_Medicine_Society . However, I am not sure why the following list is not enough? What more an organisation needs to demonstrate enough notability? My article is very similar to another article successfully published on Wikipedia with only 10 references - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Association_of_Nuclear_Medicine

References

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS/CONFERENCE POSTERS:

1. Competencies and training of radiographers and technologists for PET/MR imaging - a study from the UK MR-PET network" European Journal of Hybrid Imaging. 4 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/s41824-019-0070-6. ISSN2510-3636. (2020).

2. Clinical trials in molecular radiotherapy—Tribulations and Triumphs Report of the NCRI CTRad meeting held at the Lift Islington, 8 June 2018 : https://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/bjr.20190117?journalCode=bjr

3. Evaluation of Radiopharmaceutical Adverse Reaction Reports to the British Nuclear Medicine Society from 2007 to 2016: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/58/12/2010.short

4. Quality assurance in myocardial perfusion tomography: a collaborative BNCS/BNMS audit programme. British Nuclear Cardiology Society/British nuclear Medicine Society. https://europepmc.org/article/med/10581589

5. A survey of nuclear cardiological practice in Great Britain https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/67/3/273.full.pdf

6. Global shortage of medical isotopes threatens nuclear medicine services BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1577 (Published 05 September 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1577

7. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence: A consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society, endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-003-1344-5

8. The radiation dose to ward nurses from patients having nuclear medicine investigations: https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecord&RN=18036859

9. Improving information for nuclear medicine department outpatients. https://europepmc.org/article/med/8047325

10. Hogg P, Holmes K. The interpretation of nuclear medicine data by non-medical health care professionals: Developments in the United Kingdom. Journal of Radiography and Diagnostic Imaging. 2000; 3: 77–85.

11. Audit of nuclear medicine scientific and technical standards: Nuclear Medicine Communications: August 2004 - Volume 25 - Issue 8 - p 771-775; https://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2004/08000/Audit_of_nuclear_medicine_scientific_and_technical.3.aspx

12. Evidence-based indications for the use of PET-CT in the United Kingdom 2016. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/27207376

13. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2562441&blobtype=pdf

14, Setting up a myocardial perfusion scintigraphy service: clinical and business aspects. https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1876393&blobtype=pdf

15. Guidelines for the provision of radiopharmacy support to nuclear medicine. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/12744229

16. Guidelines for the measurement of glomerular filtration rate using plasma sampling. Nuclear Medicine Communications: August 2004 - Volume 25 - Issue 8 - p 759-769. https://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2004/08000/Guidelines_for_the_measurement_of_glomerular.2.aspx

17. The new BNMS guidelines for measurement of glomerular filtration rate. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 01 Aug 2004, 25(8):755-757DOI: 10.1097/01.mnm.0000136714.77658.4a PMID: 15266168

18. Isotope shortage is limiting nuclear medicine across Europe. BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1575 (Published 05 September 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1575; https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a1575.extract

19. Guidelines for the Provision of Physics Support to Nuclear Medicine; Nuclear Medicine Communications, 1999, 20, 781–787; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.6208&rep=rep1&type=pdf

20. Nuclear medicine in district general hospitals. Br Med J 1979; 2 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.6201.1336 (Published 24 November 1979)


BNMS STAFF RELATED POST:

21. BNMS Vision - British Nuclear Medicine Society". www.bnms.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

22. McCready, Ralph; Gnanasegaran, Gopinath; Bomanji, Jamshed B. (9 March 2016). A History of Radionuclide Studies in the UK: 50th Anniversary of the British Nuclear Medicine Society. ISBN25. McCready, V. Ralph (2019-11-01). "The 70th anniversary of automated radionuclide imaging". European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 46 (12): 2414–2417. doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04413-5. ISSN1619-7089.


UK GOVT

23. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880548/ARSAC_NfG_Apr_2020.pdf

24. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/134202/bma-briefing-euratom-and-brexit.pdf


BOOKS:

25. Hamilton, David (David I.), 1951- (2011). Diagnostic nuclear medicine: a physics perspective. Springer. p.318. ISBN. OCLC1065219450.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) pg. 373

26. Sharp, Peter F. (2005). Practical Nuclear Medicine. Springer-Verlag London Ltd. p.65. ISBN. OCLC300259694.

27. Feld, Michael; Roo, Michel de (2003). History of Nuclear Medicine in Europe. p.81. ISBN.Festschrift – the Institute of Nuclear Medicine: 50 Years. 23 October 2011. ISBN. Pg 33.“The University of Leeds Review". 1987. Pg 278


REPORTS:

28. Royal College of Physician: Hybrid imaging guidance on legislative, reporting and training aspects Read the guidance". RCP London. 2016-11-25. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

29. The society of Radiographers: Covid-19 nuclear medicine recovery guidance | Society of Radiographers". www.sor.org. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

30. No-deal Brexit guidance for nuclear medicine teams | The Royal College of Radiologists". www.rcr.ac.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-05.


BLOG:

31. Nottingham University: “Far more talent than we counted on". Postgraduate Placements. 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2020-05-05.http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/postgraduateplacements/2019/10/21/far-more-talent- than-we-counted-on/

32. ECMC: https://www.ecmcnetwork.org.uk/news/announcement/cert-welcomes-support-british-nuclear-medicine-society


AWARDS:

33. The PET Centre". www.sthpetcentre.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

34. King's College London.mp4, retrieved 2020-05-29

35. IPEM > About IPEM > Prizes and Awards > IPEM Members winning external awards". www.ipem.ac.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

36. https://www.uhs.nhs.uk/ContactUs/Directoryofconsultants/Consultants-by-service/Radiology-scans-and-imaging-consultants/SaadDrZia.aspx

Thank you for your help. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Earthianyogi (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthianyogi: the concerns aren't about the count of references, its about their type. Wikipedia reqires reliable independent sources for establishing notability. I haven't checked them all, but stuff written by the subject or the article (or persons working at the subject of the article are not accepted. (and btw said page has 5 references, at least 2 of them appearing reliable and independent) Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt:, thank you. I initially thought so. But when my article got rejected a couple times, I am forced to think that numbers do matter. Earthianyogi (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:06, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Watermelen


Watermelen (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my draft about Lydia Palmatier declined?

@Watermelen: As stated on Draft:Lydia Palmatier and on your user page, the draft fails to show that Palmatier is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, your family, or your friends. Its articles are not a place to express your opinions. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:57, 30 May 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C:C100:CE62:1150:B1CB:5D96:EC5E


This is my first complete article to be written from scratch and entered for submission. I know I am not very good at it yet, but I am trying hard to get better by taking the advice given and making the changes suggested. I feel like I might have gotten it right this time, which is why I am requesting a re-review, but I know that I need others to feel the same way for it to be able to actually be published, so please let me thank you all who have helped me for both your great patience and continued kind consideration. Thank you. 2601:8C:C100:CE62:1150:B1CB:5D96:EC5E (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:C100:CE62:1150:B1CB:5D96:EC5E (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @1292simon: as the reviewer who rejected. For the talkpage: I wasn't able to check the first two sources, but for the third one could argue that it is not WP:SIGCOV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victor Schmidt. Thanks for checking. I am happy for the article to be re-submitted now, so that someone else can review it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:39, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Benedict2005


Im sorry if the wikipedia Article i created (The Goodwin Family) for review was not pleasing, or appropriate. However, is it ok to still work on my Article and still submit it for review if i just remove the "Place of Memorials"? The Goodwin family are in fact a significant family for the Titanic. Benedict2005 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benedict2005. Removing some small part is unlikely to transform the draft from a memorial into an encyclopedia article. The first source is a dead link. The second is a personal blog, so not a reliable source. Find-a-grave is a generally unreliable source. Encyclopedia Titanica is user-generated content, so not a reliable source either, see the WP:RSN archives. To continue working on the draft you would need to blow it up and start over from scratch, using reliable sources for history, like books from academic publishers.
Wikipedia has some articles about RMS Titanic's crew and passengers, and possibly another one could be acceptable. However, the overwhelming majority of people involved will never meet the encyclopedia's notability guidelines (inclusion criteria). Given the popularity of the topic and the number of Wikipedia editors, you can assume that articles about the most clearly notable people already exist. None of those articles is very good. Your time might be better spent improving an existing article instead of trying to create a new one. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:20, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Saileshkolanu

I am unable to create a biography page. Saileshkolanu (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saileshkolanu Writing an autobiographical article (not just a "page") is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, that's what social media is for. Wikipedia summarizes only what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, that of a notable creative professional like a director). If you truly meet that criteria, independent editors will eventually take note of you and your work and write about you.
Please also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:09, 30 May 2020 review of draft by Hana Moh HN


For the Draft:Nasser Al-Aswadi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nasser_Al-Aswadi Mr.1292simon put this question for me: This BLP does not include events that pass Wikipedia's notability thresholds. Does the WP:SPA author have a COI that should be disclosed? I am from Yemen, and I am interested in writing about artists in my country. This artist is a famous artist who has many artworks that you can search about and find on the internet. His exhibitions international ones. I hope you confirm it to be published. Hana Moh HN (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:17, 30 May 2020 review of submission by YiruoLiu

I was wondering why my submission was declined? I'm aware that there is already an OpenResty wikipedia page, but OpenResty and OpenResty Inc. are different things.

YiruoLiu (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YiruoLiu. As stated on Draft:OpenResty Inc. and on your user page, the draft fails to show that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia), separate from the product OpenResty (which also fails to demonstrate notability, and will likely be deleted shortly). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:01, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Jackbigfan


What did i do wrong Jackbigfan (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackbigfan: Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, your family, or your friends. Its articles are not a place to promote or adulate anyone. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:50, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Amitmgosavi


Amitmgosavi (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:43:08, 30 May 2020 review of submission by RichardZack


Hello, an article submission I made was declined due to alleged notability reasons, however, multiple articles from independent sources were provided, including from TechCrunch and the Times Union, both well respected, independent publications. Can anyone help me understand why this wouldn't be considered notable?

RichardZack (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:49, 30 May 2020 review of submission by D.rainer

Editor said there are not enough sources. Which sources does it need for the article to be released? D.rainer (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@D.rainer: WP:NWEBSITE requires at least three reliable independent sources. Your draft currentely has two sources:
  • #1, alexa.com appears to be a directory listing, which are generally not accepted
  • #2 is the subject's own terms of use page. (which is not independent)
Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:21, 30 May 2020 review of submission by DenverBB

DenverBB (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Hi, could I please get advice on which areas of this article are causing the it to get rejected? All sources used are secondary sources not connected with the subject. All language is objective and fact-based from sources given. I would like to know what to change and how to avoid these issues on any other articles I contribute to in the future. Thank you![reply]

Your submission has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. The draft just tells about LaPedis. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable author). Your sources don't have in depth, significant coverage, they just tell things this author has done. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

05:28:26, 31 May 2020 review of submission by ChrisParker92

Can someone please take a closer look at Draft:Mark Liu? It was recently rejected for not having significant coverage but there are quite a few sources that show significant coverage of Liu, not just passing mentions. Here are a few examples which include the world's largest financial newspaper and Taiwan's Central News Agency.

Here is more significant coverage:

From what I see from the time stamps, the article was turned down four minutes after it was put up. Could that really be enough time for an editor to carefully review the sources, particularly when many of them are foreign language sources? I would appreciate another look. Thanks! ChrisParker92 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisParker92 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my question may have slipped through the cracks. Can someone take a look at the draft please? ChrisParker92 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:32:17, 31 May 2020 review of submission by 24.229.146.136


24.229.146.136 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further as there is little to no chance it can be sufficiently improved to meet standards. It appears that the person you wrote about does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. You also do not offer independent reliable sources to support the content of the article; the article should only summarize what such sources state. Social media accounts are not independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:59:09, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Sachinlathiya007


Sachinlathiya007 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sachinlathiya007: your only source so far is [1]. Wikipedia requires at least three reliable independent sources for notability as defined by Wikipedia. I don't have an opinion on wether postnewsgroup.com is reliable, but the last reviewers, @GoingBatty and Sulfurboy: seem to concour that it is not. Note that the two references appear to be the same. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:39:05, 31 May 2020 review of draft by Pretoriandlz


I submitted Draft:Ernest_Pierce for AfC. It was declined on the grounds that it has no inline citations for the Early Life and Education section. I have since removed it and resubmitted for review. My question here is that the information provided therein was pulled from the actor's IMDB profile: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2720736/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Could someone elaborate if would be acceptable to cite IMDB Profile when the following non-contentious information is cited:

"Pierce was born in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Ernest Pierce Sr and Michelle Williamson.

Ernest began his career in off-Broadway and theatrical and musicals in New York and Chicago. He landed the role of Tyrone in FAME the Musical in College with the Illini Union Board Spring Musical, followed up with West Side Story. Prior to moving to Film/TV, he performed in Broadway productions such as the Son of a Preacher Man, Something’s Afoot, Death of a Salesman, The Piano Lesson and a host of others."

Thank you! Pretoriandlz (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoriandlz (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoriandlz, IMDB is not a reliable source as it uses user-generated content. As such, it should very rarely be used. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:57, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Andrej Shadura


I was told my submission has tone issues. Apparently the fact I wrote this submission prevents me from seeing them, but I paid attention to using neutral tone as much as possible. How can I improve on that?

I would also like to point out my original thought was to expand the article on Vuze to include the information on BiglyBT since in the situation when the original project is more or less dead, and continues under a new brand, it seemed like a better fit to me, but my initial addition of a paragraph on that has been reverted as an attempt to spam and I was told that not until an article on that is written and accepted, it can be re-added. I’m honestly a bit afraid of touching that article again (I did add a paragraph on the original project being dead and to be fair I expected it to be reverted just because I added it.)

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever in this case, this is not part of any promotion campaign, and to be honest it hurts quite a bit to be seen as a spammer after editing Wikipedia for many years and having proven track record of never spreading spam or being involved in any similar activity.

Andrej Shadura (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:30, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Anujjaju

Khushi Maheshwari is a famous social media personality from India having 5M+ followers. When People search for her name, they should have proper information about her. Like other social media personalities eg. Garima Chaurasiya, Priya Prakash Warrior this page has full potential to be added to Wikipedia. Why it is being rejected? Anujjaju (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anujjaju It appears that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone, and has no interest in enhancing search results for a subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how they meet the Wikipedia definition of notability. Your draft had no sources at all. Please read Your First Article for more information. It does not matter if a person has five followers, or five million, or fifty million, they must be written about in independent sources to merit a Wikipedia article. Subscriber/follower numbers are easily gamed(a person can create more than one account to "like" someone) so that is not an indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:46, 31 May 2020 review of submission by 71.104.11.211


71.104.11.211 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:55, 31 May 2020 review of draft by Indy beetle


I'm trying to review the above draft (which would be my first). I've followed all the steps laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script, and yet I am unable to launch the script. I'm not seeing a "More" collapsible tab under which to find the script and run it. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Which skin are you using? Only vector (the default skin since 2013) has a "More" dropdown, for other skins the links to activate the AFC helper script are elsewhere. If that doesn't help, please check your browser console. All modern browsers (but not nessesarely the mobile versions thereof) have a feature called Console or similar. Look for things that are in red. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:20, 31 May 2020 review of draft by BoldLuis


BoldLuis (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:22, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Pn1919

We are trying to get Tom Bertram's encylopedic article on Wikipedia, but seem to keep running into issues. Please can you recommend resolutions to have an article approved.

Pn1919 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use. If you are being paid to edit this you need to declare this. Interviews, Wikipedia, Blogs, YouTube and Twitter are not suitable sources, so the draft does not shown that he is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:36, 31 May 2020 review of submission by EmanuelB2019

Hello, moderators and contributors to Wikipedia! I respectfully ask for the help of this world elite community to publish the page of the American writer of Romanian origin "Carmen Harra" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmen_Harra, whose books (6 books) are found in the Library of the American Congress. I published on the page the link that proves the existence of the books in the Library of Congress, at the request of the moderators to justify the creation of this page. In addition, I provided links to the page showing the writer's appearances in the Central American press, in newspapers such as the New York Post, and on television stations such as NBC New York and CBS Los Angeles. It is equally easy to verify that the writer Carmen Harra was a well-known singer in Europe in the 70s and 80s and that she currently has her own radio show at the American station OMTimes Radio. I have browsed many pages published by Wikipedia in recent years, about all kinds of people who have performed in their fields of activity and who deserve to be included in an index of the most important online encyclopedia. And I noticed that this writer, who is on the same level as other public figures on Wikipedia, does not have the page. Six months ago, I started working on this page, an absolutely new experience for me. I received valuable guidance from MurielMary and Sulfurboy on what a Wikipedia page should look like and I would like to thank them on this occasion for their help. I sent the page for moderation, and the other day, 1292simon rejected it because of the reason "promotional article". I requested arguments for this opinion, especially since other moderators appreciated that the page is written in a neutral style, specific to Wikipedia. Please help me to correct the errors on this page so that it can be published. There are many similar pages already published about the Romanian beautician Anastasia Soare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Soare, about the Romanian singer Andreea Balan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Bălan, about the TV presenter Andreea Esca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Esca and about the writer Colette Baron-Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid. Wikipedia also indexes many people who have "stood out" publicly by committing abominable deeds or as mere politicians. All this information is normal to appear in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, groups information from absolutely all fields of activity. And since no one is a specialist in all areas and no one is all-knowing, it is normal to find out with Wikipedia about people we have never heard of, even though these people have been around for years and have performed in their fields. Even though we are all human and are often subjective, it is normal to recognize the professional merits of others. I call on the fairplay of the Wikipedia community to apply the same rules to all published pages. The "Carmen Harra" page reached its present form after six months of editing together with the moderators who gave their precious time to help the correct and verified presentation of the information. Please offer your contribution objectively and support me in this endeavor which is done from my exclusive position as a reader of books written by Carmen Harra. Thank you and I look forward to your feedback! EmanuelB2019 (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:01, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Triantares

Dear reviewers, I'm sorry but I'm at a loss now. You mention there are still WP:PROMO issues there which I don't see at all...nor any WP:COI as I am not in anyway affiliated with said distribution other than being an avid user and having volunteered to edit and re-submit the English WP entry which had been deleted for some reason a while back. If anything the only thing that can be done (in the sense of less WP:PROMO) now IMO is delete the whole entry, which would be kind of silly considering that the Elive Linux distribution has been around for at least 15 years and certainly should be mentioned and linked as such together with other distributions. Looking and comparing with other WP entries concerning (especially commercial) Linux distributions: They might as well all be removed with even more promotional issues and COIs than the current Elive submission IMO. Notably EliveLinux is the only distribution that does not have an internal link here and hereList_of_Linux_distributions#Third-party_distributions and there's definitely more.

I do agree that the links in the article might be a little overdone, in the sense that they're too many and distracting. To some degree that was due to a first review pointing out too few reliable 3rd party references.

It would be greatly helpful if the issues could be clearly pointed out as, like I stated I do not see them and certainly do not want to keep making the same mistakes in other entries or articles. Thanks in advance, any guidance will be greatly appreciated.


Triantares (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:51, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd


Marcywinograd (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and wondering about redirects. I noticed that articles that have a lot of page views (many thousands) are redirects from topics that do not have a Wikipedia page. If I want to redirect from an unpublished Wikipedia topic (decarceration) similar to my Wikipedia entry (Decarceration in the United States), do I need to 1) Create a new page for Decarceration 2) Go to page settings and redirect that page to my page: Decarceration in the United States 3)Submit that redirection/page for approval, as though I am submitting a real article that an administrator will have to approve? Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Warm regards, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcywinograd: as far as I can see you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so you can yust go on and create the redirect page. You don't need an approval. You can find the policy regarding redirects at Wikipedia:Redirect. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victor, for your prompt reply. I did read the Redirect page and tried to figure it out, but am confused as to how to redirect from an unpublished topic, like "prison inmate reduction" to "decarceration in the United States" which is published. As an autoconfirmed user, what do I do? Thank you for your patience. Best wishes, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:35:11, 31 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yellowmajestymusic


Dear Wikipedia,

I need help with publishing an article 'Yellow Majesty'. The article describes my music project and I don't know how to fullfil all the requirements needed in order to get the article published. Any further (explicit) assistance would thus be highly appreciated!

Thank you in beforehand.

Amir Yellowmajestymusic (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero sources, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged and you would need to pass the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN first. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:56, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Mye


I am preparing an article about a Ukrainian processing company existing since 1995. Previously, only the Ukrainian version of the page existed. But now we are working with foreign clients, and it would be more correct to have information in different languages

Tanks usb31 18:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Mye#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:21:59, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Jschwam

The article was declined because of lack of sport notability criteria, but did not specify which line was problematic, and what kind of source would be more accurate and be able to pass the criteria. Please advise. Thank you! Jschwam (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jschwam: If Wikipedians are talking about notability, its usally not a specific line of the draft or article, but rather the sources used. in this case, @Robert McClenon: stated on Draft:Michael Kraus (lacrosse) that WP:NSPORTS isn't met (click the blue link to find out the criteria). I am not an expert at sportlers notability, and, as such, don't have an opinion on the notability, but it would help if you indicated which of the notability guidelines you used. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jschwam User:Victor Schmidt - The issue isn't what line is problematic or an issue with any particular source. For sports notability, there is a long list of notability criteria, one for which sport, but there isn't a criterion for field lacrosse. So to accept a field lacrosse player, they must either satisfy general notability, or one of the criteria in the sports notability list must apply. I didn't see a criterion that applies. So the issue isn't what was wrong with the submission, but what wasn't right with the submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My advice about field lacrosse would be that lacrosse fans can form a task force to add a special notability criterion for lacrosse players. I don't have any other advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, it isn't what was wrong; it was what wasn't right. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

06:15:46, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Gidicloud


Gidicloud (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking based on my first article which I wrote now it was declined, I want to asked what exactly is the problem, was the article not good enough and what can I do to make it approved

@Gidicloud: Your draft currently cites two sources:
As such, the draft doesn't meet WP:NWEBSITE and cannot be approved in its current version. The criteria for websites are, in short, that multiple, reliable independent sources are cited in the article/draft. Note that it is important that such sources are given in the draft, asserting their existence without having them in there wont make a draft approved. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:07, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Sachi1307


Hello, Could you let me know if the list of product looks like a advertisement, but there are other Articles listing of product which are not deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XP-PEN

Sachi1307 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi1307 Please read other stuff exists. It is usually a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In addition, as time passes, standards change and what was once acceptable may not be any longer. Your draft looks like an advertisement because it just tells about the company and its products. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not brief mentions, routine announcemments, staff interviews, etc.) say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company).
If you know of other inappropriate articles, please point them out so they can be addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for letting me know, I will revise it and resubmit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi1307 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:07:37, 1 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DominicanWikiEdit1996


I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album)

DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DominicanWikiEdit1996 I answered you at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies 331dot, that was done by mistake. I didn't realize I had send it twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:09, 1 June 2020 review of submission by VidhyadhariK


Dear Team,

I just got to know the Draft:Chaithra Rai, got a mail saying that my article submission was declined, I what to the reason for rejection and also what to know what I am missing and in what criteria I have to improve my self and the data to be added resubmission.

VidhyadhariK (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:28, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Luca929


Luca929 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never written a wikipedia page before so I am very clueless at what I am doing. I was tasked with doing for someone I know, thinking it would be simple but I was wrong.

@Luca929:

14:02:38, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Newlywo

hello, I do not understand how Mr Isaac isnt notable.. we are talking about an Israeli journalist, editor and presenter on the biggest most viwed channel in Israel and mostly, a known personallty in Israel. There 5 Links and 19 References. I'm asking for a fair and new review to be made. Thank you.

Newlywo (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:38:00, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Amkgp


Amkgp (talk) 13:438, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Team, I've never written a Wikipedia page before. In fact, I got a warning before, for editing in Article Space without trying a sandbox edit. so I am very clueless about what I am doing. Now I got a review from Amkgp(Wikipedia member) that my article creation was disappointing. I am sorry for this action. Actually My idea was creating a company page article. But I don't know about the full editing about the article creation. Can you give me the solution for creating this page? Thank you in Advance.

(Note) This subject appears to be inside the the cryptocurrency area, which is currently under general sanctions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyasteve: You may go through Help:Your first article, and keep in mind what Victor Schmidt has pointed out. Its very important. You can always ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thank you

15:07:21, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Luca929


This is my first time creating a Wikipedia page. Can anyone give advice or assist on how to get this published? Luca929 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s actually your second time creating a Wikipedia page, as this Draft:Treo (Drink) was also rejected. The topics are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:32:53, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Amanniste


I would request a second look by an editor who might be more familiar with the subject of art as far as determination of notability is concerned

Amanniste (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:59, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Himanshuaroraa

Hi, I was trying to create an article for someone I know, I wrote content and added citations. but I did some mistakes, Now I am trying to figure out where I can make some improvements to get it live on Wikipedia. I got permission from Itsanupkumar. I do not what citations could be more reliable to Wikipedia. I request you to help me with this. Information I am providing is hundred per cent genuine. What tone can be acceptable?

This article has one more copy on Wikipedia as a draft. Can you also remove that and consider this?

Himanshuaroraa (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:31, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Nasimarad


Nasimarad (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Please somebody help me! I've tried many ways to put this article on Wikipedia which is about a really professional man but every time someone rejects it and I don't know why. If you know how I can fix this and if you can help me please do me a favor and contact me. I'm new in Wikipedia and I don't know why it is so hard to put a single article about someone's personal & professional life.

19:11:56, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Mye


Volunteering

question icon

Hello Worldbruce

No i don't get any pay for trying to create this article. I have been working in this company for a long time (more than 19 years) and recently discovered that we don't have normal information on the Ukrainian wikipadia, and in general there is no page in the English version. I have no relation to the PR team or something like that, but I always like to see quality information. I act here as a volunteer, and as a person who knows the history of the company

My contribution to the wiki is so small that I don’t think anyone would be interested in my personal story on Mye profile. Although after you pointed out its absence, the thought of its creation was born.

usb31 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


19:41:49, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Caryplace7


I wrote a biography on Mike Greenhaus, Editor-in-Chief of Relix Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) I have been working on the biography for several weeks and it has been looked at by several editors. Last week an editor said I had enough articles (3) to show notability and that I should resubmit. However, another editor just rejected the claim of notability How do I proceed?

Caryplace7 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:58, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Yoshiiiiiii


I am asking for a re-review because I added more context to who SOUL was and provided better citations to provide further context. Yoshiiiiiii (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:31:49, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Dylan Hendricks

I started this article on my own and have a draft page started, but I want to know how to add specific collaborators to my draft so we can work on it together. Dylan Hendricks (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:35, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Belltown9

Hi there: I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble with this page.

For what little it's worth, I'm on the board of The Rock Poster Society, and have written extensively on rock-poster artists at Collectors Weekly and elsewhere. I've also curated rock-poster exhibitions, such as this one at SFO Museum.

The problem with an artist like the late John Moehring, who I got to know before his death, is that the Seattle rock-poster artists in the late 1960s never got the attention and press from mainstream, traditional media outlets like their counterparts in San Francisco. As a result, their contributions have gone largely unsung. I have tried to correct that by contributing to a book on the subject, by writing about John, and by building a Wikipedia page in his memory. Collectors know how rare and valuable this work is, which is why I linked to a recent auction where many pieces went for above their high estimates. I have also linked to references to John (albeit passing ones) in publications by the University of Washington Press and testimony by Art Chantry. I even posted a link to all the John Moehring posters in the collection of the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle.

There will never be a reference to John in Time or Newsweek or anything like that, so how does this important '60s psychedelic rock-poster artist get his Wikipedia page? Again, forgive me, but I'm stumped.

Best, Ben Marks Belltown9 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2020 review of submission by Cdg1072

Sam-2727 advises that I seek another opinion about my article the Change of Fortune Paradox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox. He suggested I point out the fact that it went through several declines, although this was because I resubmitted a few times. Subsequent to that string of submissions, finally some needed changes were actually suggested, and now those changes have been made. For example, theoretical views cited in the article are now attributed directly to their authors in all cases, not synthesized as plain declarative facts. Second, all the several theories (except one!) in the article are now at least linked to a third party, who mentions each view somewhere else--each viewpoint is tied to another secondary source. In accordance with that, the theories presented are being treated as primary sources--not secondary ones. If they were secondary sources, then they wouldn't need a secondary source to back them up. I would mention that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles that rely on primary sources too much. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche%27s_views_on_women

The other main problem with the Change of Fortune Paradox, at least in Sam-2727's opinion, is the structure. I'm surprised he's still unhappy with the structure. He seems to feel that the straight listing of a series of views on a problem, is too plodding and dull, as a structure. Sam-2727 doesn't state clearly that this is the problem, but I don't know what else he means. However, many Wikipedia articles that have no problem with structure, have this same structure. For example, the one I just showed you, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche%27s_views_on_women, and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor.Cdg1072 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:14:00, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Honeymaidgrahamcrackers


Hey! What does it mean when you say that there isn't significant coverage?

Honeymaidgrahamcrackers (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


June 2

Request on 01:21:11, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Caryplace7


Hello I have been trying for a few weeks to publish a bio of Journalist Mike Greenhaus, Editor-in-Chief of Relix Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) This is my first bio, though I have added references and edit over 100 other articles, so I am still learning how to do this properly. I have gone few a few drafts with a few editors after being denied and have been able to successfully clear that there is no conflict of interest and that I have enough independent third-party sources focused on the subject to make this worthy of acceptance. However user Chris just denied by post within minutes of my posting it. Chris' comments suggested that a majority of the references I cited were by the subject I was writing about when in fact NONE of the links are by him, nor from the magazine he edits (expect the masthead as proof of his current position) The four articles I cited as best references had all been cleared as OK by another editor and are focused specifically on the subject of my bio. In addition, the other articles cite him as an expert reference which according to my research is the type of articles that should be included as proof of notability. I understood I have perhaps too many references; I was trying to balance a mix of articles focused solely on Mr. Greenhaus with citations on his work from larger references. Please let me know how I can improve. Thank you so muchCaryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:58:09, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Acham


Not sure why the many references "do not establish notability" for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_McNamara_(sportswriter)

"During his life, McNamara was a prolific journalist, covering sports and news in Maryland. He had written and edited for the St. John's College High School Sabre newspaper, the University of Maryland College Park Diamondback newspaper,[1] the Washington Post, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, the Prince George's County (MD) Journal[2] and The Capital[3] in Annapolis, MD. He wrote three books on sports prior to his death,[4] and appeared as a guest commentator on line for the Washington Post,[5] and on radio on the Rick "Doc" Walker" show, and with Johnny Holliday to discuss Baltimore Orioles, and Washington Nationals baseball and on the Maryland Sports Radio Network. McNamara was a voter[6] in the Associated Press Top 25 NCAA basketball poll.[7] He won several awards for his writing from the Maryland - DC - Delaware Press Association. [8]"

I provided info on 4 books, on-line commentary, and multiple radio appearances. Can you provide specifics for what you need to establish notability? Of course, there are references are to his own writing, as would be the case for most journalists. However, 4 books, multiple interviews of him including in the Washington Post, and hundreds of articles that he wrote, would seemingly meet your qualifications. I am sure I have what you need, but I am having trouble imagining what else to include. Thank you.

Acham (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:20:41, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Nova9944

I finished a userspace draft and clicked the "submit your draft for review" button. There was no indication as to whether it was submitted or not. Also I do not know how I will receive your reply so please email me if possible. Nova9944 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at WP:HD. @Nova9944: please don't ask the same question at two different places. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:54:29, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachi1307


I don't understand how to make it into an Article, different reviewers have different suggestion. Firstly, there are no any advertisement, and then it create by others with a draft not a article, why can I not create to be an article. Who can guide me how to do it？

Sachi1307 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:40, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RiHuang

Could you please review it? I provided all the correct and authentic information! Thank you! RiHuang (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:45:13, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RixiangH

How can I revise it to be able to pass? RixiangH (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:46:06, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Armonia3i


Can someone please point to specific changes to make, so that the draft shifts to a more neutral perspective ?

(Quick background and disclaimer: my first car will probably be a Škoda Citigo iV; as such, I’ve searched Wikipedia for a summary of car and services information, only to find that there is very little available, so I proposed this dedicated wiki article to contain specific information about the features of each of their services/apps; I’m not connected with Škoda Auto in any way, but I have contacted their support email with questions.)

I already attempted to make it strictly factual, by summarising and referencing hour-long presentations, and official press releases (available services, exact features of each app, public statements on the brand’s future plans). Would referencing second-hand articles (that replicate this same information) actually aid give a more neutral perspective? Are there specific statements that seem speculative or advertorial?

The article seems to me to have a similar structure as other brands’ in the same electro-mobility category, like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i but yes, arguably more focused on a future owner or interested party than the general public.

Would contacting someone from the Transportation WikiProject help to get another perspective, and better alignment with existing pages for EV families?

Armonia3i (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armonia3i by basing the draft on hour-long presentations, and official press releases and the like, you are going in exactly the wrong direction. Such presentations and releases are produced by the company, and naturally give the most positive view of the product possible. A Wikipedia article should be based primarily on Independent published reliable sources, sources that have no connection with the company and no interest in whether the product does well or poorly. They should also be professionally published, not fan or personal sites. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:47:34, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RIXIANGHUANG

Could you help me? I don't know why my wiki page is not approved. RIXIANGHUANG (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RIXIANGHUANG Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", it has articles typically written by independent editors. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:38, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Kcsnooker


I am new to Wikipedia and have a basic question

I would like to create an article about myself. It does meet the notability requirement. I have submitted a draft with article name "Kamal Chawla", but not sure if it will get rejected due to Conflict of Interest. If so, what is the best way to get the article published?

Kcsnooker (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are notable enough you'll need to have citations from independent websites, newspapers, books or radio. Generally, you can't make articles about yourself, I'm not an expert but I know you'll need lots of citations for the size of your article. Maybe consider copying and pasting it onto your user page? Freyr Brown (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:53:54, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Freyr Brown


Hi, My article was recently rejected and now (after looking at some articles about notability and citations) I understand why it was rejected. I've now taken the time to get citations from newspapers, books, online newspapers and independent websites. I have cited lots of those and now I'm curious whether that will be enough. I'm also questioning if the amount of information there is online, makes it notable enough. I've found info from a lot of big newspapers and I think it should hopefully be good enough as a topic but I'm very new to all this and I'm not quite sure. I don't know exactly what my question is but if there's anything anybody could tell me that'd be great, thanks! Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown As you were informed by the reviewer, lower level schools are not typically notable according to Wikipedia's definition. Articles must do more than tell about the subject(as yours does); they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Your draft just tells that the school exists and some things it offers. Note that even a school where a horrific shooting occurred, Sandy Hook Elementary School, does not merit a Wikipedia article(though the event does). There needs to be a great deal of significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond mere mentions, routine announcements, or just confirmation that the school exists- for a school itself to merit an article. For example, a school that is housed in a historic building that has been written about in that context. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:36:18, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Aflantwo


Aflantwo (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:02:37, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Agnieszkasek


Agnieszkasek (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your feedback regarding the Tools Up! Wikipedia page draft. I have some questions to ask in order to make sure that the next version of the article will fit the Wikipedia standards better. 1) The feedback mentions that the article "appears to read more like an advertisement" - could you explain which parts of the text read like that? 2) "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - which sources do you deem unreliable? All listed articles are published and available online. Moreover, none of the sources is a material produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I'm looking forward to your reply. Thank you for your time. Best!

Agnieszkasek The "Gameplay" section in particular reads as if it came from a company promotion, and in any case Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or game guide. The "Reception" section, which lists only positive reviews and reactions, also seems a bit promotional For example, the revieew from Destrutoid (Currently Ref 1) says "To sum it up, there are hints of greatness. But just hints." but no hint of this modified rapture appears in the article, it is merely listed as "positive". No actual quotes from reviews are used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:47, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Clifffyle2014


Cliff 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

14:18:03, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103

I have edited the content to be unbiased and added the review page from GreatNonprofits as a reference. Arebello103 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:29:27, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103

I would like a re-review because WAA is an authentic organization, and I have edited the article to be unbiased and more informative, with additional sources other than the WAA website. Arebello103 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arebello103: If it has not been featured in any notable publications to this point, as your draft states, then it will not be accepted. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS

I am asking assistance for a question, here is the question: How do you request for an editor?Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS[reply]


Request on 16:01:48, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Saalves

16:01:48, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Saalves {{SAFESUBST:Void| 

I have many reliable sources which I cited in the text using <ref> <ref>  I thought this meant that this code would populate the notes section. Not sure what is my next step. I checked how to cite my sources but I must not understand something important. Please help.


Saalves (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saalves You need to use a pair of <ref>...</ref> tags, not the / character on the closing tag. Withotu this they do not work correctly. Also:
  • Please refer to the subject by last mname only ("Smith" note "Janet Marie Smith") after the initial mention in the lead section, unless another person named smithy is also being referred to, and this would cause confusion.
  • Please read referencing for beginners. Please provide the title of each source you cite, and where that source is part of a larger work (such as a newspaper, magazine, or website), please provide the name of that work as well. Please provide the date if publication when known. Please provide the author when known. Please list the publisher when this would help the reader.
  • Section headers should be surrounded by paired double equals signs (==Header here==) for top level headers, and triple equals for 2nd level headers (===Second level here===). Headers should be in sentence case, not all caps. Only the first word is capped except for proper names or other things that would be capitalized in running prose. See WP:SECTION.
  • Please note that since Smith worked/works for MLB, sites run by MLB are not Independent sources, which are needed to establish notability.
I hope that helps a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:28, 2 June 2020 review of submission by The Cat 2020

Hi, Who gets to decide whether the article is notable or not? I wrote an article about one of the greatest female philosophers of India. I presented citation of the moral sentences which are timeless. I wrote an article and the some reviewer made factually incorrect statements about it which resulted in the rejection of my draft. My article is written in strict accordance to the rules of English and Wikipedia. The citation is properly attributed, all the works used are properly listed. I met with clear bias towards my article from the very beginning when somebody incorrectly called it "an essay". Then somebody decided to make factually incorrect statements about the references and attribution. Now the final person wrote that, "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." If this is the final verdict then the person who wrote this must read a few things about Sir William Jones and his Asiatic Researches who I referenced in my article.He should also read a thing or two about the Asiatic Society and the mythology. Then he should consult Godfrey Higgins and Frederic Shoberl who wrote about Avyar in their works and cited her moral sentences. Are those persons are not notable enough as well? All the references to the works cited and/or used are clearly mentioned, attributed and listed along with the page numbers for your convenience. Finally, the phrase "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." clearly has a double meaning which is unacceptable. It is the polite but an unacceptable way of saying that my material is not welcome on Wikipedia. You should write a bulletin and state what people can or can't add to so-called free encyclopedia. You shouldn't exercise bias toward any material. You shouldn't block an important material from being published. You shouldn't provide false and factually incorrect statements toward the article itself when the facts presented are showing the opposite. I stand by the fact that my article is written in strict accordance to all the rules. The notability of the person has clearly established and the sources with great reputation are listed to prove that. Facts are on my side but the factually incorrect statements were made against me and my material. The latest statement is just a way of saying that my material is great but you are unable to publish it. No real reason for the rejection has been provided so far.

The Cat 2020 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on your draft, it will need to be completely re-written before it can be re-submitted, it has too much inappropriately written content which I have high lighted for you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:32, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Naijaactive


Naijaactive (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:01:27, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Mrjava2019


My draft that i wanted to publish got declined beacause the references was not enough and i was told that i need more footnotes. Could you please specify or mark witch statements that need footnotes so that i can apply them? Mrjava2019 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:26:29, 2 June 2020 review of draft by DonGuess


I have a problem with a pdf source, it's written in red letters in the "references" section so it's easy to see DonGuess (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There was, as the error message said, a line feed (newline) in the middle of the title, DonGuess. Now please add citation metadata, such as the name of the publication, the date, the author (if known) and so on. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

04:59:55, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Lifedoory

I have edited to avoid promotional content. Our wikipedia page also has published on Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cakap

Lifedoory (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:22:12, 3 June 2020 review of draft by Terminatorwil


Could you help me understand why the wikipedia page did not get approved as there were enough citation in it.

Terminatorwil (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:28, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Rahulraop

Dynamo is a public star and i think his info should be included on wikipedia.

Rahulraop (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the draft that he meets any of the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:11, 3 June 2020 review of submission by VaJaMe


VaJaMe (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 09:19:23, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dupontdupontdupont


Hello, I would need some help to publish the article I started to write about Royal Limoges, the oldest Limoges porcelain manufacture still in activity. My article was refused for edition because of a lack of sources. There are many more sources in French but not that many in English. Can you help me to publish this new page?

Dupontdupontdupont (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=960502128"