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 Jbsparrow9 (talk | contribs) at 02:57, 22 July 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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


July 16

02:40:59, 16 July 2020 review of submission by Hgill77

Hgill77 (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I see so many pages of individual orthopaedic surgeons but wikipedia rejecting mine, though have lots of first to my name and achievements

Regards HS Gill Dr Harpreet singh Gill

@Hgill77: Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Many articles on Wikipedia were created before we began this process. as we have over 7,004,112 articles, it is nearly impossible to watch them all, and we can only act on things we know. As for your draft, it currently lacks any form of source for the information. Please note that Wikipedia does not publish original research nor do we interpret sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:08:19, 16 July 2020 review of submission by 112.133.236.63

112.133.236.63 (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This submission lacks reliable sources that are independent of the subject and cover it in some depth. The subjects homepage is not independent. Google maps doesnt cover the subject. GitHub and other user-generated sites arent considered reliable]] in most cases. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:31:38, 16 July 2020 review of draft by 94.205.155.118

draft declined. Please let me know why and how to improve?

94.205.155.118 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dereena: there seems to be a script failure. it was declined for the following reasons:

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Also, please make sure that you are logged in when you edit. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:22, 16 July 2020 review of submission by 103.105.236.226

Khota El rahala is one of the best tv series in Qatar it spread love for every country. 103.105.236.226 (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:09:33, 16 July 2020 review of submission by Ziyush

Extended content

Created page for local leader with all link and proof, page is deleted because one reputed wikieditor don't know that person.i want to know that even reputed source have proof then why page is deleted? Ziyush (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Added youtube links as proof[reply]

@Ziyush: Youtube and other social media are often not considered a reliable source. To further help you We need to know about which page you are talking about. Are you talking about...
@Victor Schmidt: i am talking about page Tanuj Khatri , we have added link of youtube video as well , but that is in Hindi language
@Ziyush: Ah yes. It was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanuj Khatri. The concerns were that the article did not indicated how this subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. As I said above, Youtube and other social media arent considered reliable and therefore cant be cited to establish notability. Since the page was deleted after a deletion dscussion, we cant restore the page via this noticeboard. If you would have to have this page restored, you would have to go to WP:Deletion review. There you would need to establish the notability of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Schmidt i am not aware of deletion review, i can create a new page if you will approve it,i spent 2 days collecting information and creating detailed page and your editor takes 15 minutes to delete and that also without seeing that i have added youtube video as proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziyush (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've exhausted my patience, see WP:IDHT. I've already told you that youtube videos arent considered reliable in most cases. While I'm generally aware that creating a new article is very time-consuming, and its definetely not encouraging if articles get deleted, but we are running in circles. The article wasn't deleted in 15 minutes either. The nomination happened on 8 July 2020, the deletion today. So you had over 7 days to indicate how this meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. If you truely want, create a deletion review. Note that recreating the page will be seen as acting against consensus and is very likely to be met with a block. I am no longer willing to continiue this discussion. If another editor wants to continiue, please feel free to do so, but I'm done here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:18, 16 July 2020 review of draft by Sinjopk

Can you please help how to sort out the issue of my article, I think <ref> errror was happended in the article.Guide me how to solve the issues. Sinjo P K 09:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sinjopk: I have moved the ref for you and added more information so that the ref is less likely to suffer from Link rot. Howewer, this doesnt makes the draft acceptable. What the Draft currently needs are reliable independent sources that establish notability of that person. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:26, 16 July 2020 review of draft by Horatius At The Bridge

as per talk page - Can you assist with whether this markup highly cited is appropriate to use in WP:NACADEMIC # 1 below?


Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horatius At The Bridge, Not required and its a kind of exaggeration only. I have made the corrections. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:09:11, 16 July 2020 review of draft by Hackasaur

Why is there 2 lines of 'AfC submission' showing in the source of my draft? {{AFC submission|||ts=20200711185955|u=Hackasaur|ns=118}}
{{AFC submission|t||ts=20200711185458|u=Hackasaur|ns=118|demo=}}
does this mean I have accidentally submitted the draft twice? could that be a problem? Hackasaur (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hackasaur: No, not at all. The difference between the two templates is the t after the first pipe (|). As long as you dont have two lines on your draft that start with {{AFC submission||, everything is fine. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:46, 16 July 2020 review of draft by Rhodium66


Good afternoon! I have a question concerning my draft of an article on Wikipedia about my Father - Pomogailo Anatoliy (famous Russian scientist). The point is that my draft article has been declined for the following reason: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them". However, all the reference tags in my draft article do have content in them - they contain information about articles in the form of "DOI". "DOI" or "Digital Object Identifier" is a string of numbers, letters and symbols used to permanently identify an article or document and link to it on the web. For example, this tag also contains DOI: https://doi.org/10.1070/RC2011v080n03ABEH004079 DOI contain information about the articles mentioned and written by my Father. So, I do not understand why my draft article has been declined because <ref> tags in it do really contain the necessary information. Do I need to delete them in order to have this draft article published? I have seen quite a lot of articles with DOI <ref> tags in them, siilar to mine.

Thank you. Looking forward to your reply.

Kind Regards, Rhodium66


Rhodium66 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! I have a question concerning my draft of an article on Wikipedia about my Father - Pomogailo Anatoliy (famous Russian scientist). The point is that my draft article has been declined for the following reason: "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them". However, all the reference tags in my draft article do have content in them - they contain information about articles in the form of "DOI". "DOI" or "Digital Object Identifier" is a string of numbers, letters and symbols used to permanently identify an article or document and link to it on the web. For example, this tag also contains DOI: https://doi.org/10.1070/RC2011v080n03ABEH004079 DOI contain information about the articles mentioned and written by my Father. So, I do not understand why my draft article has been declined because <ref> tags in it do really contain the necessary information. Do I need to delete them in order to have this draft article published? I have seen quite a lot of articles with DOI <ref> tags in them, siilar to mine.

Thank you. Looking forward to your reply.

Kind Regards, Rhodium66

That was not the reason for the decline, the reason was "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I have fixed the ref problem for you, you had to stray ref brackets with no content. Please be aware thatyou have a conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:34, 16 July 2020 review of draft by Danialhalim680


Hi there. The reson why I am here is because if I have submit my draft once, it rejects. Then, I make the corrections and submit it back, will my Wikipedia draft page removed if I’m rejected again? Thanks! Danialhalim680 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danialhalim680, as long as you continue to make the improvements suggested you will have the chance to improve the draft until one of two things happens:
  1. it is accepted
  2. You fail to prove that it is notable (See WP:N) and it is rejected. Even then you have the chance to say why you feel it should be considered further
Hope this helps Fiddle Faddle 14:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:13, 16 July 2020 review of submission by Cari Cano

This is a notable subject with a large number of "published, reliable, secondary sources" (published journal articles) that are independent of the subject, and these sources are referenced in-text. I'm confused as to why it was it denied? Cari Cano (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cari Cano Currently Draft:Carey_E._Priebe consists mostly of long lists of publications of various kinds by Priebe. Ad these are written by Priebe they are not independent sources What is needed is citations to writings by others and about Priebe.
My advice would be to remove most to the listed publications. Retain up to, perhaps a dozen, certainly no more, of the most significant of his work, particularly if they are often cited by others. Find and cite perhaps three to five independent published reliable sources about Priebe, that discuss him or his work in some detail Read WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF and see that the article shows how he fulfills the criteria listed there, or some of them. Make it clear in the lead section what Priebe is most well-known for. Do not have the draft read like an academic CV or resume. Have a look at Ronald Hugh Barker as an example of a recently created article about a person in a computer-related field. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC) @Cari Cano: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:21:25, 16 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kcmastrpc


This article was declined as having not enough notable secondary sources but there are several secondary sources that are widely accepted across hundreds of other software project pages.

InfoQ Packt O'Reilly

Why are these sources considered acceptable for these several hundred pages, but not Traefik?

— Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally saw it as non notable, per my comment, but I would like a second opinion from another reviewer. (Ping me when another reviewer has an opinion). Eternal Shadow Talk 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eternal Shadow: The discussion re: Notability has been moved to the Draft talk:Traefik — Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:12, 16 July 2020 review of submission by Wiki5885

Wiki5885 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done the draft needs secondary sourcing to assert notability, or it will keep getting rejected. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

02:50:05, 17 July 2020 review of submission by Belal Hossain Chowdhury

This content is informative. Because it is about a person who has acquired a renowned position in his own country. So it can play important role by knowing people about himself. Belal Hossain Chowdhury (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This seems to be a non notable promotional autobiography. It needs a fundamental rewrite to avoid CSD. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:54:20, 17 July 2020 review of submission by Belal Hossain Chowdhury

Why my page is removing more & more ? I followed as much as instructions. Please help. Belal Hossain Chowdhury (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belal Hossain Chowdhury What draft was rejected? Without specifying the name of the draft we cannot help you. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am closing this as a duplicate request. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Francis E. Waive

09:35:11, 17 July 2020 review of submission by Frankwaive

Good day, with the help of others, The publication has been re-edited and re-submitted for review, kindly review and advice where modifications are need please.

Frankwaive (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that your submission to Articles for Creation was declined because it lacked reliable sources. Please note that Wikipedia requires third-party, independent sources for an article to be considered notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you need further help on what sources could be considered reliable, please visit the help desk. Thank you. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the message I sent to you on my talk page.

Request on 10:17:24, 17 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Chintan kalsariya

{ I want to make identify on Wikipedia }

Chintan kalsariya (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chintan kalsariya, Please do not even make the attempt unless you have genuine notability to the world at large, not just your friends and family. Wikipedia is not social media Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:14, 17 July 2020 review of submission by River44116

I submitted 3 articles for submission in April which were rejected due to being in a link format. I corrected this by typing out the articles and was still rejected. Can you please let me know how to go about fixing this? River44116 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@River44116: The current text of your draft lack any form of verifiability. It further makes use of puffery words which may not be used on Wikipedia. You got luckily here that nobody has nominated it for speedy deletion as an advertisement. Ooops. And the sandbox is done. Please dont copy stuff from elsewhere. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:55:59, 17 July 2020 review of submission by 100.11.60.158

What would it take in order to make this article valid? Thank you!

100.11.60.158 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:38:36, 17 July 2020 review of submission by Lucky7dog

I have unwillingly tried to understand the requirements of a draft, but can"t seen to make an article. Lucky7dog (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:37:40, 17 July 2020 review of submission by AnnieTruth

AnnieTruth (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AnnieTruth, the article has way too many external links and the Discography section needs a more formal tone. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

00:19:09, 18 July 2020 review of submission by AJuniorDeLaRosa

AJuniorDeLaRosa (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC) I wanted to create a Wikipedia page for an upcoming rapper, Aden Dinero but he is not big enough for the sources to be in newspapers or any other articles.[reply]

AJuniorDeLaRosa Wikipedia is not a place to write about "upcoming" musicians. A musician or rapper must have already arrived, so to speak, in order to merit an article. They must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable rapper. If they do not have significant coverage in reliable sources, they would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:17:58, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Sadiyanooraalam

Sadiyanooraalam (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiyanooraalam, I see the draft has been rejected. That can be altered by your finding references for it and requesting a review of the rejection.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 11:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadiyanooraalam, I have left a further comment on the draft just now. Please read WP:REFB to help with your misunderstanding of references Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:22, 18 July 2020 review of submission by MariaMorris1


Hi, when the page was accepted, it said that it was a C-class article, but when I click on it, it says start class. Has their been a mistake - I'm trying to improve my Wikipedia writing.

MariaMorris1 (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MariaMorris1. Now that Sebastian Thiel is in article space, it is no longer in the scope of Articles for creation; we reviewers must turn our attention to the hundreds of other drafts that come in every day.
The change from C-class to to start-class is not a mistake, merely a difference of opinion between two editors. Most experienced Wikipedians would agree that it's one or the other. There's nothing wrong with being start-class. The shades of difference from start-class through B-class may be important to people editing the article, but are less important to the broader community than knowing simply that it's better than stub-class and not as good as GA. There is a tool, ORES that predicts article quality based on structural characteristics (it can't evaluate the quality of your writing). It estimates a 28.5% probability that the article is start-class, and a 26.6% probability that it's C-class.
The quality scale has general advice on how articles move up the ladder. I've left a basket of links on your talk page that may give you ideas about improvements to make, or how to improve some of our 6+ million other articles, most of which need just as much work. Spending time editing a variety of articles is one of the best ways to get ideas for betterments. Related projects, such as WikiProject London and WikiProject Film are another source of advice, as are peer reviews. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:49, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Sadiyanooraalam

Sadiyanooraalam (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:15:00, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Naked it

Naked it (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What’s wrong with my biography please advise me

Request on 16:05:40, 18 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Chikukiri


Chikukiri (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:23, 18 July 2020 review of submission by KKVinci

KKVinci (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:36:54, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Ziad.awwad

I'd like to know how the page is serving a promotionary purpose? What should be done to enhance it? Ziad.awwad (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:54:50, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Ziad.awwad

Hello, removed all stuff that might be promotional and tried to be as unbiased as possible. Please advise on how to get approval? Ziad.awwad (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:30:35, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Mirfanelt

Mirfanelt (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirfanelt, Please read WP:NOTWEBHOST. Valid rejection and valid speedy deletion. Fiddle Faddle 22:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


21:58:00, 18 July 2020 review of submission by Cyberlt


Here are the reasons that my draft of an article was recommended for speedy deletion.

-G11- Blatant Promotion. This is obvious. I will remove all offending content ASAP.

-G12- Copyright Infringement. My website was mentioned when G12 was given as a reason for "speedy deletion". MY WEBSITE!! What do I do when I am accused of copyright infringement on myself? I also have a trademark. Should I mention this somewhere also?

-"written by a user with a COI to this topic". What more can I do to resolve this issue? I disclosed that I was a coi when I started the article and I editted my user page by pasting this line of text in the edit box as requested.

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Stephanie Laska.

How is the best way to resolve this?






Cyberlt (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberlt, Despite your delayed COI awareness this draft is pure spam. I suppose you can argue that speedy deletion is slightly harsh since you have declared your interest, but the article is pure spam. WP:TNT is required here.
Start by finding your references. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make a draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Write your draft around your references.
Why you thought declaring a COI meant you could create an advert is unclear. Starting again seems like the best option Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cyberlt, It seems to me that you need to declare paid editing not a simple conflict of interest. I have noted this with a notice on your talk page Fiddle Faddle 22:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

05:56:57, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Pradip92

Pradip Chakraborty 05:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Pradip92 Pure promotional material. You mayn't use Wikipedia for self promotion Fiddle Faddle 07:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:26:20, 19 July 2020 review of draft by Ben Airdunat

I submitted this page a year ago, but did not hear about its rejection until a couple of days ago. Rejected because it is "promotional" and sources are not adequate. I have removed a few lines, but am not sure what else to do. Perhaps an important one is the quote that Pleasant DeSpain is “a pioneer of the American renaissance in storytelling” which is only supported by the influential person who said it, and nothing in print is referenced. I have edited some wiki pages, but this the first I have ever created from scratch. Perhaps I just need someone to highlight the lines that need altering. I modeled it after other storyteller pages that already exist on Wiki. Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!!! [FYI: I have already deleted these three lines from the originally rejected page: 1) DeSpain also creates original stories for major educational publishers such as Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2) External reference: * Pleasant DeSpain Bio at August House Publishers; and 3) External reference: * Single Post Interview with Pleasant DeSpain] Ben Airdunat (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Airdunat (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Airdunat, it has been pushed back to you for further wok, not rejected. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
The reviewer is highly experienced. They will be able to pinpoint what they pushed the draft back to you for Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:13, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Jorbss

Jorbss (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorbss You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It was rejected because it has no independent reliable sources to support its content. A potential Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article for more information, you may also find it helpful to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:19, 19 July 2020 review of submission by 202.83.43.240

202.83.43.240 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a question is likely to generate an answer. Please ask that question. We cannot do more than guess otherwise Fiddle Faddle 20:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:09:15, 19 July 2020 review of submission by DMCojo

I do not understand why my article was declined. I put many hours into its creation, researching it in detail. The response said it was not sufficient information, but there is a lot there. Please advise...I don't want all my hard work to be wasted. DMCojo (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMCojo, your hard work is palpable. There is only one way to prevent it from being wasted, which is to demonstrate that the topic is not simply interesting, but is notable. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
The experienced reviewer has pushed it back to you with a very clear rationale in the big pink box A short version os encapsulated in WP:42 Fiddle Faddle 20:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:48:47, 19 July 2020 review of draft by Mr.532nm

I do understand that some of the information is already available at different pages, yet I do not see why you would decline the draft. I added a lot of information specific to the topic with a lot of inside views and I would like to improve the article over time, which I haven't done until now, because I wanted it to be published first, before putting in more effort. I added pictures of Publications that I am sure no other page has and if you want to look for general information about for example a K-Beta Line in the internet you need to read a book or scientific paper. I wanted to make it easer for people to get really specific information while giving an introduction general enough for people not to jump between pages. What, in your opinion, would need to be changed to create this Page. I mean, there a lot of pages that only have like three sentences. If that is more what you guys like here I could make 20 of those which is, at least in my mind, a stupid idea. Anyway, thanks for your reply in advance and stay healthy! Mr.532nm (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.532nm, It seems to me that both you and the reviewer are correct. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.
Instead of facing a deletion procedure it is likely, but not certain, that your draft, if accepted, would be subject to a merge process. What you need to determine is whether it ought to stand alone, or whether it ought to be merged into the article(s) the reviewer suggests.
Each of these courses of action is valid. In no case is the information lost.
Every editor at some point refers to other articles as examples, Please don't. We have a good many very poor articles, all of which need improvement, some of which should go. Fiddle Faddle 20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, thanks for your reply. I had some time yesterday and added more detailed information about the topic. For myself, I'd prefer a stand alone article,
but that is mainly because I find it extremely hard to add information to an article that is already quite long but only scratches a few main topics.
The current mindset of the creator(s) is hard to retrace and you constantly have to triple check not to mention something twice.
In this case, the first suggestion of merging with Emission Spectrum(cant get the links to work .-.) is , at least in my opinion completely wrong.
The only article this would fit in is "X-ray Spectroscopy". Yet, I guess it would be best to keep that article for general information about the topic
and then have stand alone articles for different methods of measurements, as long as they are accurately descripted.
I resubmitted the edited version and wait how it plays out this time, but if you could give me some general requirements for an article to not be "mergable"
that would help in my understanding of how articles should look like and what information they should contain.
Mr.532nm (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC+1)
Mr.532nm, For me it's a fine line, and one I find hard to draw. I tend to the thought that a new topi deserves a new article, and an extension of a topic requires extension to the article. There is a point when pragmatism takes overt and the extended article is too long. Usually one has a talk page discussion to reach consensus on the splitting out, spawning, of a new article ftom the meat of the old, leaving a précis in the original article.
Everything here is consensus based, though sometimes one follows WP:BOLD and makes a bold edit. Usually one wishes to have a basis in Wikipedia experience and the ability to justify the boldness
I wonder, therefore, whether a discussion on the suggested target article talk page would bear useful fruit? There is no deadline here Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, again, thank you for your suggestion. I will have a look into the talk-page of the articles and as soon as I find the time I will ask for more opinions on this topic.
In the meantime I will wait for the result of the new submission. Thank you for your help. Stay safe and healthy!
Mr.532nm (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:51:36, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Nik9hil

My article got rejected, even when it contained enough references to make sure the language exists. What else should I add? The language is very obscure.

Nik9hil (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nik9hil, No. Rejection is a "No, not at all, thank you." Your draft was declined, pushed back to you for further work by an experienced reviewer. Look at the rationale in the big pink box on the draft and understand it, please.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 20:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:47:15, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Aurelius Lie

Thank you for reviewing my draft. It was declined due to issues regarding Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). However I believe the requirements are fully met since the guideline states "Wikipedia bases its decision about whether an organization is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product. Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published"

There are many reliable sources that cover the company since 2018. A list of references can be found here [Press references]. The sources include a coverage on national television as can be seen on [CBS] and a newspaper article from [USA Today]. I included both sources in the article. However not all of those sources are relevant for the article and referenced in the draft. Can you assist me in how I add these sources to the article without having to specifically mention them in the article's text? If you consider the article notable now, please accept the draft. Meanwhile I shall improve the article and continue to add sources. Aurelius Lie (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:48, 19 July 2020 review of submission by Nazimsarkar

Nazimsarkar (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Since I am a newcomer, there may be some correction. But Let the page be created[reply]

22:08:26, 19 July 2020 review of draft by DMCojo

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia is full of pages of things are are interesting, but not "notable." To reject my page simply because it isn't "notable" to you is quite narcissistic. What can I do to show what is needed in order to get this page published. It is no worse than thousands of other pages that have been published. DMCojo (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMCojo, Answered above, and below. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:59, 19 July 2020 review of draft by DMCojo

I seriously do not understand what needs to be done to my article in order for you to publish it. Please give specific examples to my page, so I can make adjustments. Sending me confusing, generic, helpdesk tips is not helpful.

Thanks. DMCojo (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMCojo, You need to prove by dint of referencing where there is significant coverage in reliable sources that the topic is notable.
Asking the same question in several different ways will not get you a different answer. That you are frustrated is obvious. Please try very hard not to frustrate those whose help you ask for. Fiddle Faddle 22:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that other similar articles existing does not automatically mean that yours can too. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only address what we know about. In your case, you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

04:10:41, 20 July 2020 review of submission by WRChinChin

WRChinChin (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WRChinChin You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, as we already have an article about extraterrestrial lift. If you have well sourced proposed changes to that article you would like to make, you are welcome to do so. 331dot (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:28, 20 July 2020 review of draft by SEOexpertRajarajan

Hi, Myself Rajarajan! am new to Wikipedia, I just want to help my friend to create his Wikipedia page, He presuming his career in Tamil film industries, He acted several minor roles in top Tamil films. Recently he acted as charlie chaplain in Tamil Film Penguin. I have created his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muthazhagan), but it get rejected. I need someone help to get approved. Looking for help!!!!

SEOexpertRajarajan (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly you have a conflict of interest which you need to declare and secondly your draft has zero independent sources and no evidence whatsoever that he passes WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi wikis, I have created wiki page for my friend, He presuming his career in Tamil film industry. My article get disapproved, Now i have added IMDB Cast and Crew page of Film Penguin. In that page it mentioned his role and name, is that enough to get approved? Article Draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muthazhagan kindly help me!!!

SEOexpertRajarajan (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SEOexpertRajarajan IMDB is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia as it is user-editable. In order for this person to merit a Wikipedia article, they must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. Not every actor merits an article here.
I note that you state you are a "SEO expert"; if your friend is compensating you in any way for your edits, you must review and formally comply with the paid editing policy, you should also review conflict of interest whether you are paid or not. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, am an SEO Consultant, But this draft is completely non compensated, i already mentioned with one user, he asked me add conflict of interest.

Apart from editing, I have following 2 doubts, 1. How could i declare Conflict of interest?(what exactly i need to do from my side, i have read some documents but i don't understand those). 2. What source should i use, There are some blogs which has news about his movies. Can i add it in reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEOexpertRajarajan (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may post a simple statement on your userpage declaring your conflict of interest. Blogs are also not usually considered reliable sources. Reliable sources are those with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control, like a newspaper or other media outlet. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:36:45, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Anthony Todd 27

I want to remove my original submission for a unique page Draft:The Erie Cat. I later determined that a redirect to the Eastern cougar page would be better, but was rejected because the reviewed did not believe my attribution sufficiently established the alternative name. I'll look for better sources to support my request for the re-direct, but want to remove my unique page submission and do not see how to do that. Anthony Todd 27 (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:17, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Bibliojo

Canadian freelance conductor and musician for more than 30 years. Wikipedia needs more Canadiana! There are other folks in there that I would consider similar, David Hoyt, Rosemary Thomspons, etc. the many "passing mentions" are reviews of the hundreds of performances that he has conducted. He is a "red name" in several other Wikipedia articles including Calgary Opera, Opera Lyra Ottawa, and the Calgary Boys choir, and more, for example. His career notability matches many of those in the Canadian_conductor category.

These are articles fro newspapers and journals that focus on Mr. Paterson and his career:

Dawson, Eric. ‘Conductor Looking Overseas: [Final Edition]’. Calgary Herald; Calgary, Alta. 25 March 1989, sec. ENTERTAINMENT. Articles in Opera Canada

Kennedy, Janice. ‘Calgary Conductor New Director of Cash-Strapped Opera Lyra: [Final Edition]’. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. 10 November 1998, sec. Arts. ———. ‘The New Maestro at Opera Lyra: Tyrone Paterson Says Things Are Looking up, Writes Steven Mazey.: [Final Edition]’. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. 14 January 1999, sec. Arts.

Citron, Paul. ‘Create & Command’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Spring 2003.Six conductors (Mario Bernardi, Timothy Vernon, Richard Bradshaw, Yves Abel, Tyrone Paterson, and Bernard Labadie) comment on preparing for an opera production. The men express sometimes similar, sometimes differing opinions on memorizing the score, interpreting the composer's intentions and style, working with the orchestra and singers, and the process of rehearsals. This article is part one in a series of two.

Citron, Paula. ‘Pit Principles’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Winter 2002. Six conductors (Mario Bernardi, Timothy Vernon, Richard Bradshaw, Yves Abel, Tyrone Paterson, and Bernard Labadie) comment on preparing for an opera production. The men express sometimes similar, sometimes differing opinions on memorizing the score, interpreting the composer's intentions and style, working with the orchestra and singers, and the process of rehearsals. This article is part one in a series of two.

Jennings, Sarah. ‘A Capital Proposition’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Summer 2000.

article - "Tyrone Paterson has signed on for another five years as Artistic Director and Chief Conductor" Opera Canada, 2007-03-01, Vol.48 (2), p.6

Mazey, Steven. ‘Capital Ambitions: as Opera Lyra Ottawa celebrates its quarter century, Artistic Director Tyrone Paterson reflects on the company's progress’. Opera Canada; Toronto, Spring 2010.

Robb, Peter. ‘Director Tyrone Paterson to Leave Opera Lyra at End of 2013-14 Season’. The Ottawa Citizen; Ottawa, Ont. 14 September 2013, sec. Arts.

thanks Bibliojo (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]




Bibliojo (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:08:24, 20 July 2020 review of draft by Drazan Jarak

Hi,

Please notice I regularly read your articles about rules and ways of writing an article, especially of writing "your first article." And I have applied the draft second time 16 days ago. Of course, I know that the review waiting time is 7 weeks or more. If I may ask is there anything that can be done so this process lasts shorter than the predicted waiting time? Actually, the only reason for this inquiry is I would like to know what else I can do to improve the article, so the next time the draft could be approved.

Thank you.

Best regards,

Drazan Jarak (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:16, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Anthony Todd 27

Redirect request: Erie cat My redirect submission of "Erie cat" to "Eastern cougar" was rejected because the reviewer thought it was a "stretch" that the phrase is one that refers to the eastern cougar. I gave a single citation, which the reviewer found unconvincing. I've mined all of the following as support:

"Erie is a short form of the Iroquoian word “Erielhonan” meaning "long tail" and refers to the Eastern Cougar." Michigan Department of Environment, great Lakes and Energy https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3313_3677_95226-507495--,00.html#:~:text=Erie%20is%20a%20short%20form,refers%20to%20the%20Eastern%20Cougar.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U_14tuSMUBcC&lpg=PA214&ots=0f0kNRmBtA&dq=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&pg=PA214#v=onepage&q=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=PUfYAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA382&ots=LPiflk62pH&dq=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&pg=PA382#v=onepage&q=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=UHzyvteBgNcC&lpg=PA148&ots=_xPlaaHG-_&dq=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=3YAfcwzcfGEC&lpg=PA37&ots=nnqixYOSBL&dq=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20cougar&f=false

https://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=panther_cat&org1=syl&org2=l&org3=y&typeofrhyme=rel&loc=def

https://books.google.com/books?id=UHzyvteBgNcC&lpg=PA148&ots=_xPlaaGGYZ&dq=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20mountain%20lion&pg=PA148#v=onepage&q=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20mountain%20lion&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=_A3Fsm9MszQC&lpg=PT43&ots=SVb4WJCWI4&dq=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20mountain%20lion&pg=PT43#v=onepage&q=%22erie%22%20word%20for%20mountain%20lion&f=false

https://www.eriehistoricalsociety.org/erie-history/whats-name-erie-colorado/

http://dickshovel.com/erie.html#:~:text=Erie%20is%20a%20short%20form,(cougar%20or%20mountain%20lion).

http://avonhistory.org/hist/erind.htm

https://tunearch.org/wiki/Annotation:Erie_Hornpipe

BAE anthropologist John R. Swanton on the Erie, 1952

  • * * * *

Erie. Meaning in Iroquois, “long tail,” and referring to the panther, from which circumstance they are often referred to as the Cat Nation. Also called: Gaquagaono, by L. H. Morgau (1851). https://www.academia.edu/38459469/The_Lost_Nation_of_the_Erie_-_not_so_lost_after_all https://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question98840.html

Do you think the redirect is worth submitting with this information or am I missing something? Anthony Todd 27 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Prof. Sanjukta Deb

16:43:44, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Earthianyogi

Hello, I have written a short biography for a professor. Her name is Draft:Sanjukta Deb. I have had a discussion about it on the Teahouse Wiki page and with a few other editors/reviewer ( :Eternal Shadow; :Maproom; :Bonadea ; :Ganbaruby ; :Spicy ; :David Biddulph ), and there seems to be some confusion if this article successfully checks the notability condition. I would be thankful for the feedback.


"Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." How does the following fails this criteria?

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. ---She has 7 patents, published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26

2. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). ---Fellow of Academy of Dental Materials (FADM). ---Chair: Royal Society of Chemistry: Biomaterials Chemistry interest group.

3. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. ---She has published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26

4. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. ---She is a Professor at King's College London.

5. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. ---Ex-president: UK Society of Biomaterials. --Secretary: UK Society for Biomaterials.

6. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. ---She is an editor to various scientific national and international journals, for example, Journal of Biomaterials Application (Associate editor), Journal of Tissue Science & Engineering (Associate editor), and Journal of the American Ceramic Society (Guest editor).


Earthianyogi (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a reviewer. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Earthianyogi For the purposes of notability:
1. Patents are irrelevant. Listing them likely will be viewed as promotional, so remove them. Number of publications is irrelevant. Wikipedia tends to list all of an academic's books, but not their journal articles. If you believe it's essential to list selected works, be explicit about what the selection criteria are. H-index is a measure of citations. It may help you weigh the number of citations, but I doubt you'll find any featured articles about academics that mention their h-index in the text. Number of citations of her work may help demonstrate notability. There are a number of caveats in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes, study them carefully.
2. The Academy of Dental Materials is not a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. I would argue that The Royal Society of Chemistry is such a body. You write that she is the chair of one of their interest groups. That is irrelevant to notability. The key question is whether she is simply a member of the society, or is an elected Fellow of the society. The former is irrelevant, the latter would demonstrate notability. Wikipedia doesn't list academic credentials ("BSc, MSc, PhD,") after a person's name, see MOS:CREDENTIALS.
3. Number of publications, number of citations, and h-index are all irrelevant here. "Impact in the area of higher education" would be something like writing a textbook used by a substantial number of universities and hundreds of thousands of students.
4. Being a professor is irrelevant. King's College London has endowed chairs. Unless she holds or has held one of those chairs, she will not qualify under this criteria.
5. The UK Society of Biomaterials is not a major academic society.
6. An associate editor or guest editor is not the head of chief editor.
Concentrate on the first two (WP:PROF criteria 1 and 3) as the most likely path to notability. Cite sources that prove your case and state in the lead why she is notable. As much as possible you should be looking for independent sources, not things written by her or her employers. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Worldbruce, Thank you for taking the time to explain this. It is very helpful, but I have a few further questions and slightly different opinions on some of these points.

1a. According to Wikipedia, "Patents, commercial and financial applications are generally not indicative of satisfying Criterion 7." However, I assumed that it could be associated with other points for notability.
1b. Why is publication numbers irrelevant? "The h-index is defined as the maximum value of [h] such that the given author/journal has published [h] papers that have each been cited at least [h] times.", which implied that it is not entirely independent of the number of publications.
1c. Why does Wikipedia tends to list all of an academic's books, but not their journal articles? Technical/medical books are nothing more than a collection of journal papers. So these the books in question cannot exist without the existence of scientific journal papers. These books have a section at the end, written in small font-size which people almost never care about; it is called bibliography, which has a list of journal papers from were the text within the book is taken or supported from.
1d. Wikipedia reads, "The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus." and "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used." [WP:PROF]. I use number of publications, citations, and H-index reported by Socpus, so it should not be a problem.
1e. H-index is not a simple measure of citations. "The h-index is defined as the maximum value of [h] such that the given author/journal has published [h] papers that have each been cited at least [h] times.", which implied that it is not entirely independent of the number of publications.
1f. How may citations be enough, 3 or 30 or 300 citations? Should let's say 300 are enough, should it be for each article or for all articles in total? Is there a Wikipedia criterion that defines how many citations are considered enough to be notable? I guess it is not described in [WP:PROF].
2a. Does Wikipedia define a list of highly selective and prestigious scholarly societies or associations that can be used? They do provide examples, but not an exhaustive list.
3a. Technical/medical books nothing more than a collection of journal papers. It is very odd to say that textbooks have an impact, but h-index do not, which is based on the number of publications and number of citations.
4a. Why do you say being a professor is irrelevant? "...or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research..." This point clearly states that being a professor is enough. The explanation in [WP:PROF] is provided under an incorrect point number, i.e. 5. (see the next point). Wikipedia is not perfect; some benefit of the doubt should be given to authors in good faith who spend their time to volunteer and contribute to Wikipedia.
5a. Is there a list of "major academic society" recommended by Wikipedia that I can use as a reference before I choose to add these? "Most newly formed societies fall into that category" are considered not major by Wikipedia [WP:PROF]. “Newly formed” is not defined. How new is new, 10 years old, 100 years old, or 1 year old?
5b. Please note that for all my Wiki articles criteria-5 is ENOUGH to be notable. "Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments." [WP:PROF] I never wrote about anyone who is not a full professor.
6a. "As much as possible, you should be looking for independent sources, not things written by her or her employers." - I think we need to understand that peer-review publications should be considered independent sources, despite the author's name or employer. Please note that Wikipedia's peer-review process is different from the scientific peer-review. A scientific journal aims to publish novel research that is not published elsewhere, peer-reviewed by more than one independent scientist who are experts in their field. On the contrary, Wikipedia only accepts articles which are only previously published elsewhere, and the reviewers are not expert in the area in which they review articles. They follow guidelines provided by Wikipedia, which are very much subject to the individual’s interpretation.
6b. She is not head/chief editor, but "service on editorial boards of scholarly publications;" support criteria 1 but "usually not sufficient individually". [WP:PROF]

I have only mentioned WP:PROF on a few points; if you re-read it, you may find some points conflicting your points/other-points. Again, Wikipedia is not perfect, but all of us are trying to contribute to the greater good of society. Perhaps, this should be taught to the new reviewers, who keep rejecting articles without adding positive value to these rejected articles. New reviewers should keep their ego aside and try to make positive contribution and provide precise reasons to improve the articles when they reject these articles.

Thank you once again, it was nice exchanging ideas with you. Earthianyogi (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:06, 20 July 2020 review of submission by Booklover1990

A page published regarding review about novel published by self-publishing company has rejected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booklover1990 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:34, 20 July 2020 review of submission by 73.50.196.164

I want the page to be edited. 73.50.196.164 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

00:03:02, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 2406:3400:312:4E30:98E9:A81E:BF80:56D

I am not requesting to re-review, I am requesting to find out what I can do make this content as objective as possible to it can be approved.

We are not looking to use this as a form of advertising, we merely just want to establish a page that outlines who we are, how we were established and what we do and.

Or alternatively, can you point me in the direction of utilising a non-bias writer to produce the content?

Thanks!

2406:3400:312:4E30:98E9:A81E:BF80:56D (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to review and comply with WP:PAID and WP:COI. What you describe as your intentions here is considered promotional on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for organizations to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where article subjects must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to(in this case) meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected to the organization have chosen on their own to say about it. The sources you provided are not significant coverage. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.
You can make a request for others to write about your organization on Requested Articles, but there are literally tens of thousands of requests and any request you make will likely not be acted on anytime soon, if ever. If you want to tell the world about your organization, you should use social media or some alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:30:06, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 6Lizardthewizard9

I am requesting that the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Greg_Yuna be published as a notable person of interest. Multiple links have been added to confirm the legitimacy of the person.

6Lizardthewizard9 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:01:23, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 2604:2000:12C1:4A:F109:3949:BCC2:8FB0

Hey, this page continues to be rejected after it has been accepted previously. The rejections are vague so it's hard what needs to be improved about the article. If it's an issue of notability, the reason I began the page in the first place is that there was a open request for the article here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_education/US_-_Yale. Curious what can be done about this.

2604:2000:12C1:4A:F109:3949:BCC2:8FB0 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ElliottComputer. The draft was declined because its sources do not make clear that the subject is notable. The request page that you linked to begins with the disclaimer, in a red-bordered box "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify."
The draft has many citations, so assume the problem is with their quality rather than quantity. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their subject. If you can't demonstrate notability with 3, you won't be able to with 49. Concentrate in particular on independence, you don't want things written by her, but things written about her by other people. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:41:20, 21 July 2020 review of draft by Diamond909

i created a wikipedia Articale then Submission declined this created with 100% wikipedia guideline with wiki rules please let us know y this article not been published need some help to be published in wikipedia thank you...

diamond plastic company (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond909 Your draft has no independent reliable sources A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. If you work for or represent this company, you must review and formally comply with the paid editing and conflict of interest policies. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Diamond909: No, this is not "100% Wikipedia guidelines" nor it is 100% within Wikipedia Guidelines. As for the problems I see so far:

07:24:30, 21 July 2020 review of draft by CareAtya


CareAtya (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to know why you guys not given priority who are doing great things ... everyone not doing market ... Many of people doing great thing every day but no one know much more so its our responsblity to represent his quality world wide.. so my concern is give chance who want to devlope or want to support society..

CareAtya Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about great things that are going on. This is an encyclopedia, which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about (in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. If you just want to tell the world about this company or the great things it does, you should use social media or some alternative outlet where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:46, 21 July 2020 review of submission by KKVinci

KKVinci (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

interviews aren't independent. Neither are the subjects social media channels. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:30:35, 21 July 2020 review of submission by B.n1995

Hi everybody! I have created the draft Lukas Meyer and have edited it according to claims made by other users. I am wondering what is still missing?

Best B.n1995 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B.n1995. The lead should tell the reader in the first sentence or two why this philosopher is notable, which criteria of WP:PROF he satisfies. See, for example, Georg Cantor and Max Weber. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:03, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Diamond909

diamond plastic company (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been addressed above. Please do not make additional discussion sections. If you have additional questions, please add them to the prior discussion above. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:34:45, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Schanu

I have no connection with either Mark Janicello or his TV show, "The Finellis", but rather find him an interesting artist whose work should be written about. I am not particularly a fan, but have noticed his endeavors in various fields of art over the years. The reporting on "The Finellis" is no different in tone and content than for most television series. This is factual reporting with enough verifiable references, and I do not understand the reluctance to publish this page Schanu (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:01:23, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:9129:6211:83A0:1468

I'd like this page re-reviewed as we have updated it accordingly based on the feedback given last time. We'd like to get this published. 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:9129:6211:83A0:1468 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who "we" is, but the draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that this person does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person. The sources seem to be press release type stories, routine announcements, or other primary sources that do not establish notability. A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about the subject and cite the things they have done; any article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how they meet the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:58, 21 July 2020 review of submission by 216.174.67.169

This article is noteworthy I believe. It fits into the historical context of the Napoleonic Wars.

216.174.67.169 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:12:52, 21 July 2020 review of draft by AProGeek

I'm wondering if it is suitable to site a source that covers that topic but also another that does a little AProGeek (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:13:57, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Clarealev

16:23:35, 21 July 2020 review of submission by Mujeebuddin1543

The page i am requesting for is a genuine application which has potential to help millions of unemployed youth out there and people has right to know the information if there is something that can change their lives and help them financially in this pandemic, i request you to kindly approve the page Mujeebuddin1543 (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikipedia is not for advertising. JTP (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:26:38, 21 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Evgeny Kandybko

Dear Sir/Madam,

My Wikipedia draft for International Cultural Diversity Organization (ICDO) has been declined with the explanation it looks more like an advertisement than an article. I would appreciate very much being directed more specifically about the parts that need to be revised or changed.

Sincerely, Evgeny Kandybko

Evgeny Kandybko (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well for example the very first paragraph contains this "The ICDO team includes multicultural and multidisciplinary experts from various fields that use their expertise to fulfill ICDO’s mission and goals to shape a future where different groups of people are able to embrace each other’s cultural differences." which is entirely advertorial, it is followed by a mission statement, which we have no interest in. Theroadislong (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

01:11:47, 22 July 2020 review of submission by Screaming Bloody Marys

Please give me feedback on what I can do to make this page acceptable for publication. I was not trying to promote or violate Andy wiki standards. I was trying to follow the format, but I am very willing to make efforts and changes that will satisfy the editors and staff at wikipedia, Thank you. Screaming Bloody Marys (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:18:25, 22 July 2020 review of submission by Jerianne20

Hi! I would like to request for reconsideration on rejected article.Can it be moved to subject for revieew? Since the band's existence may not be notable per Wikipedia rules (since I cannot cite the Gaon sources etc yet) but the band is officialy set to debut in August. I don't want the draft to be deleted since they will be relevant in the future.

Need your advise on this. Thank you.


Jerianne20 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:57:04, 22 July 2020 review of submission by Jbsparrow9

I have edited the article and added an infobox, making it look much nicer and like many larger articles. Thank you for your time. Jbsparrow9 (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=968882665"