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 Nike.rabadiya (talk | contribs) at 18:01, 18 August 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


August 12

00:00:17, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Thebuzzreporters


Thebuzzreporters (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:01:20, 12 August 2020 review of submission by 70.51.223.36


70.51.223.36 (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to the draft you refer to so that we can actually provide help. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I need help in editing the submission to pass thru guidelines...what is my best approach to make appropriate edits?

03:43:42, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Allthewaydigital

Who are you do decide? Allthewaydigital (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allthewaydigital, It appears that we are the ones who make the decisions. Please come back without a conflict of interest. We do not accept advertising Fiddle Faddle 09:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:51:42, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Theenglishworkshop


I would like to know why my article is not worthy of being made public. This is just a biography. It is not meant to be educational. Is there some other section where I can post? I am confused. Theenglishworkshop (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theenglishworkshop Your draft was rejected because it has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone. A Wikipedia article should summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a subject, showing how(in this case) it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. "Significant coverage" goes beyond brief mentions, name drops, routine announcements, interviews, and other primary sources. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:57:14, 12 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ana Maria Teodorescu


Hello, thank you for your review on my article Dragos Iliescu. It looks like the submission was not accepted due to copyright. But the information you are referring to are part of the person's CV, which he sent me. The CV was written by himself and he gave it to me to use as a reference. And these are names of books he wrote or was co-author. Would it be accepted if I include the CV as a reference?

Ana Maria Teodorescu (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Maria Teodorescu, No.
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 any 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. Fiddle Faddle 09:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:23, 12 August 2020 review of draft by Vsp.manu


This draft has been declined by saying it needs more notable reference. I have rewritten this page and added more References. I am requesting you to help to improve the contents if you have noticed.

It will great help if you suggest me to either include or exclude or arrange the information given in the draft. I am open to remove if anything is against policy.

Many thanks.

Vsp.manu (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:22:49, 12 August 2020 review of submission by 27.34.50.237


27.34.50.237 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@27.34.50.237: This submission lacks any form of verifyability. The 3 inline citations are dead links for me, two being a no longer existing server and the third one a classic HTTP 404. The facebbok profile, which isn't a reliable source never existed aparently (it redirects to the homepage) and the Twitter account was banned for violating the rules. If you are IPrabin (talk · contribs), who originally created this draft, please login. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:16:17, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Aryanfanpage24

I have made this page and there is nothing copyright material or any type of restricted material available on my draft, its my personal draft, so please re-review it and approve it Thank You

Aryanfanpage24 (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aryanfanpage24 You have no sources at all in the draft, let alone independent reliable sources. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about someone. A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:43, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Alikhan7770


Alikhan7770 (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you wrote is not an encyclopedia article, but an advertisement. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:40:16, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Chamofdo.99


Chamofdo.99 (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chamofdo.99, I rather think you need to ask a question. The draft is.... unsuitable. Fiddle Faddle 14:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone review this page?

Request on 14:52:35, 12 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jakecalder


Hey, Can someone review my draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vivek_Ramachandran

Thank you

Jakecalder (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jakecalder, there is a small chance that your draft is notable, but the sources don’t fully show that. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of the sources are unreliable as well, furtherly making it problematic. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:01:43, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Ipsub14


Ipsub14 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsub14, your draft was promotional, but you blanked it, so I will G7 it (presumably good faith blanking). Eternal Shadow Talk 16:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:20:08, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Sensei daniel san


Sensei daniel san (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both someone else from my company and I wrote Wikipedia articles for our firm- so there are 2 submissions pending. Will the most recent one replace the other? Both of us spent a lot of time on the articles, and don't want to lose our work.

@Sensei daniel san: have either of you declared that you are paid by your company to write drafts here? PLease see {{paid}} Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddle the article I am writing is indeed for my employer, but they have not asked me or directly paid me to write it. Nonetheless, I will include that I belong to this company in my article. Do I just print that template you gave me at the top of the article? Sensei daniel san (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sensei daniel san, I ttink it has all been done. Thank you. We construe paid editing pretty broadly, so an employee of X is considered to be paid by X when they write about X or and of X's staff. This saves improper and unpleasant accusations. Transparency is a good thing.
Please advise your colleague to do the same Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:41:17, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Mehmoodj1


Mehmoodj1 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmoodj1, Does it look like any other valid article to you? Fiddle Faddle 21:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:38, 12 August 2020 review of submission by Sensei daniel san


Sensei daniel san (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Fiddle does this mean it's going to always be a 'no'? Or do I just need to be transparent about my employer and remove all references that point directly back to the company webpage?

@Sensei daniel san: Realistically, it will be "no" for years. Some day Draft:EdCast could become notable, but there's no sign of that being just around the corner for EdCast. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

00:39:57, 13 August 2020 review of submission by Weareantigravity


I am frustrated because a number of my sources were marked invalid because they're technically "PR." If I just delete those citations entirely can the page get approved? I've added a lot of citations, changed a lot, and am still at a loss here. I have seen many other artists have a page approved with less information, clout, sources, etc. This artist has had a long career and worked with a ton of top artists so I'm just trying to figure out how best to get this published. Everyone's suggestions have been super helpful, I just feel like I'm going in circles a little. Thank you!

Weareantigravity (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weareantigravity, 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 this 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. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:48:47, 13 August 2020 review of draft by Madicspector


Can you give me specific examples of what reads like an advertisement? Everything that's written comes from a credible source or Kyle himself and is his story in the music industry.

Madicspector (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madicspector, I wasn't the original reviewer of your article but I agree with them that the article is written in an overly promotional tone for an encyclopedia. "Novawave is rated as a top music label company in Las Vegas" is one example. The fact that you say that much of what's written comes from Kyle himself is part of the problem. Wikipedia is not really interested in what people have to say about themselves. Sources which either come from the subject themselves, or are interviews with them are of very limited use as sources. Independent, reliable sources are needed to determine that the subject is notable, and articles should always be written in a neutral, non-promotional tone. Pi (Talk to me!) 00:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:26:39, 13 August 2020 review of submission by Dr. jeramiah Laden

i believe this page should be created in loving memory of a fictional character created by the late nicky palmer Dr. jeramiah Laden (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a blatant hoax and I have tagged it for speedy deletion Pi (Talk to me!) 02:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:23:24, 13 August 2020 review of draft by Joocha


Hello, I have question for my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Giga_Agladze

What is matter that this article is declined few times? why? This is not commercial text, every texts have references and this article is about one person. What can i do that accepted this articles?


Joocha (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is not a reliable source. the geocinema Link is a 404. Imdb.com is user-geneerated content and should be removed. plain external links don't belong into the main article body. This submission doesn't indicate how this subject means WP:NACTOR. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question from StrwberryCheeseCake

Hi! Hope you all are fine. My first draft - (Articles for creation: Sis vs Bro) had got rejected though the host had told me that it was declined. I would like to know the reason it was declined/ rejected. Thank You!StrwberryCheeseCake (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)StrwberryCheeseCake[reply]

StrwberryCheeseCake, It was rejected because it is a minor youtube channel. If it ever becomes notable it may have an article Fiddle Faddle 09:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was also uncited and therefore did not demonstrate how the topic meets our Notability criteria. You need around three detailed, indepth and independent reliable sources that talk about this youtube channel in some detail. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:34:33, 13 August 2020 review of submission by M 4991

I need your help to give me pieces of advice regarding the improvement of this article, so that it can get published. Sufficient references are provided. Mustafa Science and Technology Foundation is a non-profit organization that holds several scientific events each year. Its main event is Mustafa Prize, for which there already exists a Wikipedia page. Please help me generate the Mustafa Science and Technology Foundation's Wikipedia page, so that its further events can be included on Wikipedia. Best wishes. M 4991 (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M 4991, I thnk you make a mistake with thr purposes of Wikipedia. You appear by your words here to wish to use us as a vehicle for promotion of your cause. Wikipedia does not promote causes, however worthy.
If the organisation passes WP:CORP then it will be included. It may seem odd to you that the prize has an article but that the organisation does not. This is part of the paradox that is Wikipedia.
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.
Your current references are PR or rehashed press releases. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
M 4991, but see Mustafa Science and Technology Foundation Fiddle Faddle 09:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:46, 13 August 2020 review of submission by Aminul Islam a

Why my article is not approved . If any is lack or shortage inform me I will reform that and will write article again. Aminul Islam a (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason why your article isn't approved because either it is not sufficient to be notable otherwise you need to put in a little bit more effort. It's ok. Keep Trying. StrwberryCheeseCake (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)StrwberryCheeseCake. Also i would like it if you specify your draft. So that people/ viewers can check and you may have a chance of getting approval.[reply]

Hi Aminul Islam a, your article was declined because it is written in the style of an essay rather than an encyclopedia article, and it appears to be a piece of original research/opinion. Wikipedia is not the right place to try and write an article like that. Pi (Talk to me!) 00:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:31:40, 13 August 2020 review of submission by StrwberryCheeseCake

I am not actually asking for a re-review but i would like to you to give me some advice as i am obsessed with learning new things. I would want to improve and make sure my next topic is notable to Wikipedia. I am ready to learn new Technics on how to improve my language and explanation to people about a topic. Thanks for sparing some time on this message. Thank You!StrwberryCheeseCake (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StrwberryCheeseCake, as a general advice I would recommend you take a look at WP:GNG so your drafts do not get rejected in the future. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StrwberryCheeseCake (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:16:54, 13 August 2020 review of submission by Mehmoodj1


Mehmoodj1 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This submission lacks any form of reliable independent sources. Note that Wikipedia is primarely interested in what independent people have written about the subject, not what the subject want to say about itself. This submission therefore fails WP:NCORP (assuming this is meant to be about the company). This submission lacks sufficient context for independent reaaders to know what you are talking about. You can see WP:YFA for your next attempt at creating a draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:30, 13 August 2020 review of submission by ZaluzianskyaOvata


I am new to Wikipedia so I woudl value advice on what I need to do. Nick is a well known UK garden designer and appears on Gardener's World regularly - his other colleagues are already on Wikipedia.

Thanks ZaluzianskyaOvata (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Nick Bailey, Garden Maker has zero independent sources. In order to demonstrate notability, you need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles written about Nick Bailey in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. If there are no sources then we can’t have an article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that it is entirely possible his colleagues could merit articles and he does not, if no one writes about him. See other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:17, 13 August 2020 review of submission by FMecha

Just saw this rejected, abandoned draft and decided to take some news research on the company's history. While most of pre-raid stuff are related to their NASCAR deals, I managed to get one for their partnership with California State University, so this might worth another look (I also tried to reformat the citations). FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:50:06, 13 August 2020 review of submission by Mehmoodj1


Mehmoodj1 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As above, the submission lacks any form of reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:33:57, 13 August 2020 review of submission by Mehmoodj1


Mehmoodj1 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmoodj1, Your edits and repeated removal of speedy deletion tags have started to become disruptive, as have your repeated failure to ask questions here despite posting, and your apparent refusal to engage with editor on you talk page. Fiddle Faddle 21:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mehmoodj1: I second what Timtrent (talk · contribs) has said. I have left you several messages on your talk page, as has Tim, and yet you have ignored them and continued to recreate your drafts after they get deleted. You've already been blocked once for disruption, and if you don't stop and listen to what other people are telling you to do, I imagine that will probably happen again. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:14, 13 August 2020 review of submission by 216.174.74.201


216.174.74.201 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The biography of Dragomir Protić is an authentic biography of a Serbian revolutionary who fought the Ottoman Turks for the liberation of the region. He is an officer who joined the same troop led by Vladimir Kovačević (Chetnik), Stojan Koruba, and others.

August 14

I dont know how to proceed

04:27:41, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Joebolanos1


I thought this would have been easy. this is my review article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neuroscience_20_(Brain20,_Spine20_and_Mental_Health20)

I have talked to the CEO of the society and he has given me a lot of information first handedly, and also permission to use the information on their webpage which are 16 points of the N20 initiative, like reciting the 10 commandments, how can I "make them original or paraphrase them?"

I have a copyvio I have tried to explain this to my reviewers. they suggested for me to come here, I think I am too new to this, and simply its discouraging...


Dr. Joe F. Bolanos M.D. (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joebolanos1, Where you have elements like this, the important thing is that they are licenced correctly for use. You may have the CEO's permission, but Wikipedia does not know that. How could we? Either the licencing on the source web site has to change or permission must be proved to Wikipedia for the elements to be used. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a good place to start your journey Fiddle Faddle 06:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joebolanos1, the same applies to the files uploaded to Commons. That is a separate place and requires separate handling by you. It has very strict rules. Fiddle Faddle 07:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:35:12, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Peter Pudev

I have started an article about the village of Lilkovo. I would like to monitor any changes that other users make to this article. I can see somebody has already made 3 changes but how do I see what those changes are? Peter Pudev (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pudev You can examine the edit history and review every edit made to the article. Click the "View History" tab at the top of the screen(if using the desktop version). If you haven't already, you can add the page to your watchlist by clicking on the white star tab at the top(if it is blue, it is already on your list) 331dot (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:05, 14 August 2020 review of submission by San Stei


I have changed the name and have added the right link to verify the text. The Institute Burghausen belongs to the Rosenheim University of Applied Sciences. This is not an advertising but an important place for science and innovation. An article in the German Wikipedia is already existing. San Stei (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like blatant advertising, it is irrelevant that the article exists in the German Wikipedia, different countries have different guidelines for accepting articles. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:20:26, 14 August 2020 review of submission by San Stei


San Stei (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:36:34, 14 August 2020 review of submission by 86.120.130.103


I ask for a review 'cause I've managed almost 100 games in professional football and I had with big names as Christoph Daum.


86.120.130.103 (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Still not acceptable. This needs reliable sources that are independnet of the subject. If you are Marius Francisc, please read Wikipedia:Autobiography along with Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:57:21, 14 August 2020 review of submission by 111.91.18.105


111.91.18.105 (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that you need to ask the reviewer who rejected it in the first instance Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:59, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Գարիկ Ավագյան


This is draft article. I would like to know weather this pass WNG before submitting? Would be very thankful!

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Գարիկ Ավագյան, I have left you a comment on the draft itself Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:54, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Rlambert327

I was told that "local news" isn't notable, so links to national news articles featuring Centerstone have been added. At one point, we had our logo on here, but wasn't sure if that was allowed. Seeking advice on how to get the page completed and approved. Rlambert327 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Rlambert327 (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, it will not be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tharindu Himash

14:56:55, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Ramba Kollo


Ramba Kollo (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has exactly zero reliable sources and has been correctly rejected, did you have a question? Theroadislong (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)This submission lacks reliable independent sources. Youtube can be unreliable due to WP:UGC. Amazon is not regarded as reliable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:11:52, 14 August 2020 review of draft by Lev.Klyatis


Good day! My name is Lev Klyatis. Some time ago I tried to publish an article about myself and my life. I am the author of a lot of technical literature. For some unknown reason, I cannot go through the verification of my article. If you need to provide the necessary documents, confirmations, I will gladly do it.

Lev.Klyatis (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lev.Klyatis, Why on earth would you want ti be in Wikipedia?
When you created the draft you copied and pasted a load of material form some source or other elsewhere. I can tell by the line endings. Unfortunately there is a huge set of copyright violations present. Thisis not allowed.
The text is unreadable. I'm afraid you will need to start afresh, and this time from scratch, please
Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography along with Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Fiddle Faddle 15:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tharindu Himash

15:17:14, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Ramba Kollo


Ramba Kollo (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramba Kollo: You asked above already. This won't be accepted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:51:11, 14 August 2020 review of submission by PhaithS

hi, itS my first edit today. I created a profile and I’m excited. But i want to be sure its up for review as i didnt a yellow box after clicking the publish button. Thank you so much for your help.

PhaithS (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PhaithS: You need to create your submission in draftspace instead of on your userpage. Your draft should be located at Draft:Cynthia Shalom. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PhaithS: I have renamed the page to Draft:Cynthia Shalom and added a submit button for you. Please move the citations to the place where they are actually needed. If you need them multiple times, you can use named references. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:10:46, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Kbaker121

I created this page and submitted it for review on June 24. It was initially accepted by Koridas talk? who left a message on my talk page informing me that it had been assessed as B-Class. Less than half an hour later a message from John from Idegon (talk) informed me that he had moved it to draftspace. On July 23, John from Idegon was blocked indefinitely by Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) for "making personal attacks towards other editors." A review of the comments on John from Idegon's talk page shows that this was an issue going back to at least April 12, which means that it was an issue when he moved my article to draftspace. Reading those comments, I now question the reasons John from Idegon did so. Can this be re-assessed please?

Kbaker121 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already queued it for reassessment. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kbaker121, I think we only need to be concerned with the draft, not any behaviours of those who edited it in the past. Please leave that aside.
I have left some substantial comments on your draft. I see it was declined yesterday, and I hope my extra comments will be useful to you. We need to know why he is notable, not a list of the various things he has done. You may think they are the same, and they have similarities, but context is important. You and I have each done lots of things, but is the doing of those things of themselves notable? Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:32:31, 14 August 2020 review of submission by Brad31563


Hi, I have been researching and working to create an article on the topic of a church organization: Church of God, a Worldwide Association (COGWA). COGWA is one of three organizations with memberships over 10,000 people that have their roots in the Worldwide Church of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Communion_International).

I put the article up on the main space after completion, but it was moved to a draft space and I was prompted to make changes by using reliable, independent sources to make the article meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. I have gladly made changes accordingly and submitted the draft of the article for review, but it has still been deemed unworthy of being put up as an article on the main space. Prior to submitting the article for review, the changes I made included a variety of reliable, independent sources, including book publications and other reputable sites. After the article was declined to go on the main space, I removed a few internal links to COGWA and changed some wording to make it less like an advertisement per some of the additional comments as to why it was not approved to go on the main space. I have not yet submitted the draft for review again after making these changes.

I have done research into other church organizations, particularly ones that are similar to COGWA or have been affiliated with COGWA in the past. The Wikipedia articles for these church organizations (such as the United Church of God, Living Church of God and Philadelphia Church of God) are not much different in their wording and in their way of sourcing material. Some of these other Wiki pages even have fewer independent, reliable sources than the COGWA article. In fact, one of the organization’s wiki articles has very few sources that are almost exclusively internal to the organization, and another one provides only a couple independent sources. I am not in any way writing to degrade other articles but simply to inquire that I may understand why the COGWA article that I have proposed is not allowed on the main wiki space and what I can do to improve the article to make it notable for inclusion in the main space.

I would greatly appreciate your help and suggestions. Thank you!

Brad31563 (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brad31563 Please see other stuff exists. It is not usually a good 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, and it's possible to get things by us. Also, article standards have changed over time. This is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits.
Your draft just tells about the church and its practices. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this church have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. For example, unless the constitution or the church's mission are discussed by independent sources with no connection to the church, such things would not warrant inclusion in this article. The church has(or can have) a website where it can tell the world about those things. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 15

Request on 07:35:09, 15 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by FashionBazaar



FashionBazaar (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FashionBazaar: this needs reliable sources who are independent of the subject and offer significant coverage (not yust passing mentions). Se3rveral ones (usally three, more are always good) Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:25, 15 August 2020 review of submission by MarkCarey911

I tried to create the page of one of the biggest film producers in Africa, and I realized it had been declined. I searched and used some reliable sources including The Guardian News, BellaNaija and Pulse News (These are the most reliable online magazines in Nigeria), I created a draft on AfC and yet it was declined again. I'm adding sources like BBC, France 24, Guardian, OZY.com, Reuters, Premium Times, ThisDay News, La Presse. Thank you Here's the page Draft:Charles Okpaleke What do I do? MarkCarey911 (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarkCarey911, if you are confident that you have done all you can do at present, simply resubmit for review Fiddle Faddle 08:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MarkCarey911, Accepted. I have noted the prior AfD on the talk page and left a comment about acceptance there. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:13:08, 15 August 2020 review of submission by 117.222.245.16


117.222.245.16 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikipedia is not the right place to make a profile page about yourself. Wikipedia is not a web host or a social network. Pi (Talk to me!) 14:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:42:24, 15 August 2020 review of draft by JasonWeingartner


I redid it to try and use neutral terms according to the guidelines and removed a bunch of material that previously made it appear as a CV. I want to see if this redraft is headed in the right direction or there are still major issues along these lines that would still need to be addressed.JasonWeingartner (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JasonWeingartner (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:15:33, 15 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Unknownnreasonn


Please help me in this problem. Like I'm using reliable sources in the above draft but it is rejected due to website subject.What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownnreasonn (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unknownnreasonn (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unknownnreasonn, What problem, please? Fiddle Faddle 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:36:42, 15 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sobayi



Sobayi (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

 Why i did nothing wrong
Your draft only contained the content "Have U Sorted In Two Mins". so it was rejected, it is not a draft article. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:54, 15 August 2020 review of submission by Racash134


Racash134 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Racash134 as previously explained Wikipedia is not a web host for personal web pages.Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 16

04:31:56, 16 August 2020 review of submission by Thenigeriansocialite


Thenigeriansocialite (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thenigeriansocialite: Please see Wikipedia:inline citations for how to format inline citations. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:45, 16 August 2020 review of submission by Violinwiki

I would like to check on the status of review for this page, as I noticed a message that the previous reviewer is going to be on break for sometime. If this is the case, is it possible to get this draft reassigned to someone else? Thank you! Violinwiki (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violinwiki Your draft, as noted at the bottom, is pending review. It will be reviewed in due course by a volunteer, as the notice states, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,439 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:48:00, 16 August 2020 review of submission by Skkhanshabh


Skkhanshabh (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skkhanshabh, It appears that you are not notable in our terms. Do you disagree? Fiddle Faddle 09:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:18, 16 August 2020 review of submission by CHURCHIL JERIN

I would like to check on the status of review for this page, as I noticed a message that the previous reviewer is going to be on break for sometime. If this is the case, is it possible to get this draft reassigned to someone else? CHURCHIL JERIN (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:34:29, 16 August 2020 review of submission by Asifiqbal12


asif (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:12, 16 August 2020 review of submission by 156.204.212.97


156.204.212.97 (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an ideal venue for announcing your birthday, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:11:12, 16 August 2020 review of draft by Memon KutianaWala


Anna Higgs(this got approved in 2 days because i created the article direct and not used draft)


I am creating article since 2018 but usually i create direct and it gets approved but last 3 articles of mine which are in draft taking too much time. Can any editor look into this and move it to main space? all the articles are passing WP:GNG WP:BIO and on WP:NPOV

Memon KutianaWala (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Memon KutianaWala, You've been very lucky in the past. Please have patience in the present and the future Fiddle Faddle 15:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:10, 16 August 2020 review of submission by 216.174.74.201


This article is worthy of inclusion based on the remoteness of the location and its architectural value, not to mention the relics that are stored in the church monastery.

216.174.74.201 (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:40:30, 16 August 2020 review of submission by Taiwanbro101

I have included valid sources and more evidence of significance that can prove this person worthy of his own wikipedia page

Taiwanbro101 (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in another Seigenthaler. Every single claim requires a strong third-party source corroborating it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 22:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:10:05, 16 August 2020 review of submission by Shsj7238380


Shsj7238380 (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC) i want to have wikipedia page of my name fransisca sim as im just starting youtuber please approve it im still just starting and i doesnt do promotion i want have one wikipedia for people easy to know me immediately please unblock @lienching19811 do not block me wikipedia is for everyone i never do promotion and is that false im just starting have own fransisca sim page as im just starting youtuber i never do any promotion i want have a wikipedia personal fan page about me page for my social media look more official and more nice viewing my profile , simple and elegantic i want to have my own fransisca sim page for my links at youtube more official and known please approve and publish my fransisca sim page no worry please approve and publish at google search page wikipedia thanks please approve my page[reply]

Shsj7238380 Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, and has no interest in enhancing search results for you. If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, someone will eventually take note of you and choose to write about you. Please see the autobiography policy. Also note that an article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:03, 16 August 2020 review of submission by MateoZigo


MateoZigo (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MateoZigo You don't ask a question, but this is the English Wikipedia, contributions need to be in English. Even leaving that aside, you did not offer any independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please see your first article for more information. 331dot (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MateoZigo, First it is written in German. Bad move for the English Language Wikipedia. Second, Wikipedia is not social media. So of course it was rejected Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

00:47:15, 17 August 2020 review of submission by 41.45.96.30


41.45.96.30 (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't asked a question, but what you wrote is completely unsuited for an encyclopedia article, and seems more like a social media entry. You should use actual social media for such things; this is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:35:19, 17 August 2020 review of submission by Mathewkary


Mathewkary (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:15:07, 17 August 2020 review of draft by Aethelyon


Hello, I am working on a new post. This is the first time I have worked on a person. I linked to several news articles, but the feedback was that they were not credible. Can you help me understand what is a good source and what is a bad source? Thank you!

Aethelyon (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At its most basic, the reliability of a source can fall under a three-prong test: (1) Is the source independent of the subject or their surrogates/underlings/family members/business? (2) Does the source discuss the subject in some depth? (3) Does the source have an editor-in-chief or equivalent position that is responsible for fact-checking what they publish and issuing retractions if needed? LinkedIn fails all three prongs; YouTube is generally useless for other reasons, CrunchBase fails prong 2 (as it's a database). In terms of companies, we also don't generally accept routine business news as a viable source - with "routine" meaning merger announcements, acquisitions, funding, real estate pickups, etc. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 19:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:44, 17 August 2020 review of submission by RawnakS

The links provided in the reference tab are legit and they have no problem and they are all accessible. Still this sraft has been declined many times even though I provided many more links. So I would be very grateful if you give me tips on improving the page. Thank you very much for your time

RawnakS (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RawnakS, You have created multiple versions of this draft and moved them to main article space ill advisedly. You have been told that his own writings are unlikely to qualify as references. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely
Here is your tip:
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 this 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. Fiddle Faddle 10:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RawnakS, I looked at your talk page. That is identical with the hints and tips I gave you when I declined one version of this draft. Is there anything that you find difficult to understand and that you would like explained further? Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. As you know I am new to wikipedia. For the reason I could not understand the referencing system. But now I understand and I will try my best to avoid anything like this in the future. Once again Thank you and sorry for the trouble I have given you. Also it would be very helpful if you could tell me which references I gave were acceptable. Thank you once again-RawnakS

11:17:51, 17 August 2020 review of submission by Jorbss


Jorbss (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jorbss You don't ask a question, but your draft has been declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the draft Draft:Kiarash Behain was rejected, not declined meaning that it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:36:50, 17 August 2020 review of draft by Prakriti aryal7


Prakriti aryal7 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Prakriti aryal7}] You haven't asked a question. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:04, 17 August 2020 review of draft by Ipsitam


Ipsitam (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:11, 17 August 2020 review of draft by Davetheirishguy


good morning, my submission at Articles for creation: RELEX Solutions (August 14) was declined, The reason left by 2pou was:

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

I am having difficulty determining if this specific submission was declined because it need to be written from a neutral point of view or the references do not comprise of enough of a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Which is it, or is it both? Thank you!

Davetheirishguy (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davetheirishguy Your draft just tells about this company, and is sourced to press-release type articles, routine business transaction announcements, or brief mentions. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must 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. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:38:09, 17 August 2020 review of submission by 156.204.24.43


156.204.24.43 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was already addressed above. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:42, 17 August 2020 review of submission by Edetroit

I am requesting a re-review of the article I am submitting on Benny and the Jets Band from Detroit, Michigan. My initial submission was rejected for lack of notability. I take that to mean there was not enough significant information on the subject I was submitting. I have much detailed information that I can submit, with reference links, in addition to the initial biographical information you already have. I am submitting much more detailed information on Benny and the Jets Band below. I believe this additional content will warrant the band's inclusion in the esteemed ranks of WIkipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Eric Harabadian, Edetroit Edetroit (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benny and the Jets Band is a member of the Michigan Rock and Roll Legends Hall of Fame: http://www.michiganrockandrolllegends.com/mrrl-hall-of-fame/231-benny-the-jets . Benny and the Jets toured coast to coast in the U.S. and Canada, including appearances at Cobo Arena in Detroit, The Kingdome in Seattle, Bonaventure Arena in Montreal, Park West Theatre in Chicago, Las Vegas Hilton and Las Vegas Convention Center. Benny and the Jets have opened for Freddy "Boom Boom" Cannon, Bo Diddley, Chubby Checker, The Coasters, The Drifters, The Platters, Eddie Money, Eddie Rabbit, Ted Nugent, Steppenwolf, Humble Pie, Badfinger, Herman's Hermits, Paul Revere and the Raiders. When the U.S. Post Office released the Bill Haley and the Comets Rock and Roll Stamp they hired Benny and the Jets to perform the song "Rock Around the Clock" at the unveiling. Benny and the Jets were featured in the documentary "Nothin' but Music" http://www.facebook.com/nothinbutmusicmovie . The documentary features several scenes filmed at the historic Michigan Palace Theatre which was owned by band leader Benny Jet's father Dr. Leo Speer. The Michigan Palace Theatre in Detroit, Michigan helped launch the careers of KISS, Aerosmith, Bob Seger, Bachman Turner Overdrive and Bruce Springsteen.

None of that suggests that they are notable.See WP:NBAND for criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:31, 17 August 2020 review of submission by Jorbss


Jorbss (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know How to resubmit my Wiki article again. I've made some changes on it.

We are not interested in another Seigenthaler. Every claim the article makes requires an inline citation to a strong third-party source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:29, 17 August 2020 review of submission by Mim.jahid


Mim.jahid (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting this somewhere other than Wikipedia. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:45:03, 17 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Oruli1964


I created a draft for a hotel article detailing the events and international acts the hotel hosted but my draft was declined. Im in need of assistance

Oruli1964 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G11. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:15, 17 August 2020 review of submission by Allisterfiend666


Almost everything in this article is cited by multiple sources, which are the premiere, industry standard bodybuilding and fitness publications, daily newspapers, and mainstream publications. All acting and voiceover credits are referenced to IMDB and multiple sources. There is no conjecture in this article, it is all factually accurate and nearly everything is cited with multiple sources. The subject has won multiple world and national titles, at major competitions, and is a known world class bodybuilder. Allisterfiend666 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Interviews are not reliable (contribution of subject/surrogate).
  2. IMDb is not reliable (wiki).
  3. Anything the subject writes is not reliable (contribution of subject/surrogate).
  4. Photo galleries are not reliable (No text/dialogue).
  5. Fandom is not reliable (wiki). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 23:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:32:39, 17 August 2020 review of submission by 217.39.29.162


Hi there, would you be able to advise how I can get this article published?

Since the pandemic, the rise of working, learning, collaborating remotely has given rise to icebreakers - they are used in a variety of settings. This article is designed to highlight a particular icebreaker game which users such as facilitators I feel find of interest.

Hope you can help.

Thanks!

217.39.29.162 (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission has been rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered for acceptance. You are welcome to contribute elsewhere in the encyclopedia. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

02:57:12, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Zroxuf


I have properly sources the information provided in this submission for your review. Please consider approval.

Zroxuf (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. We are not interested in another Seigenthaler. Every claim the article makes requires an inline citation to a strong third-party source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:18:01, 18 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Eswnav



Eswnav (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please improve this article and move main page

05:28:22, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Akhand Bharat Parishad


Akhand Bharat Parishad (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Akhand Bharat Parishad: this submission lacks any form of verification. It appears to be written to praise it's subject, but Wikipedia doesn't allow that. After a quick check I saw that it was aparently copied and pasted from a Huffington Post article. Please never copy (news) articles onto Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:38:48, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Globalwatch123

Sometimes draft take 3-4 months to be reviewed. Lose out on patience and we try directly in article space. Sorry to have caused you inconvenience. Please do review the article

Globalwatch123 (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Globalwatch123, your draft was rejected on 13 August. I'm sorry you have lost out on patience, but I suggest you do not try directly in the article space. Creating an article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia and your track record suggests that you need help Fiddle Faddle 08:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Globalwatch123, Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashok Arora. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But after the article was deleted there were some notable events that took place which i thought would contribute to Ashok Arora notability. He was chosen as secretary of supreme court bar association. He was in national news in India due to a fight with president of supreme court.(Globalwatch123 (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

08:42:45, 18 August 2020 review of submission by MediaManager1


I would like to request help moving my draft to article space, because I have complied with all the guidelines, answered and addressed all questions, and I believe my topic has met all requirements set by Wikipedia. My draft is a stub and will be improved by me if further improvements need to be made. I will also be including more relevant references and sources should they be available in the future. I have disclosed that I am a paid contributor by Sirom Group, and I was hoping to get paid soon once I successfully move Draft:Francis Baraan IV to Article Space. And I hope my fellow editors here would help out. I nominate myself as admin for this Page, and will nominate anybody willing to share the adminship of this Page as long as they would help improve and defend the keeping of this Page.

I urge anyone to please come take a look at my work, review it favorably, and move it to Article Space. Thank you so much.

MediaManager1 (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1 (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaManager1 I've answered you on my talk page. It is not advisable to do what you are asking. Also, articles (not mere "pages") do not have designated administrators or monitors. You are certainly free to monitor any article you create, but you can't designate yourself as having any more rights to it than any other user. The term "administrator" also means that one has certain tools at their disposal, tools which the general public does not have, so you shouldn't use this term unless you are indeed an administrator. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EditorManagerPH. Fiddle Faddle 08:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:14, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Hnfatema

I have added more sources to the article, to prove the given information. Have made the content neutralized so that it doesn't look like someone is advertising. Hnfatema (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full of name dropping, promotional content, correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:03:50, 18 August 2020 review of draft by KerstingFan


Hello! I have been helping another user, Mazzola20, with only their second ever draft! There was a bit of misunderstanding of what the difference between citations / links were and the article was rejected on those grounds (and the reviewer gave really helpful guidance, thank you!). The article I hope is now ready to review, and I am sure the person meets all the WP:ACADEMIC requirements. Thanks for any help with this!

KerstingFan (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KerstingFan, Accepted thank you for working in the confusion about what is and is not a reference Fiddle Faddle 12:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent very many thanks indeed for your help and patience! KerstingFan (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KerstingFan, 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. This one was easy to accept once the problem had been solved Fiddle Faddle 12:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:09:17, 18 August 2020 review of submission by 156.204.168.233


156.204.168.233 (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With precision, what answers are you expecting here? Fiddle Faddle 12:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:50, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Rugby-league-100


Rugby-league-100 (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:21:41, 18 August 2020 review of draft by Eswnav


Eswnav (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to move draft to main page?

@Eswnav: Article keeps getting declined. It doesn't appear to be ready for "main page". You should try to improve it first. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:33:08, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Kuruvillac


Please could you review the draft Adeeb Ahamed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adeeb_Ahamed It has been in the draft for over 3 months.  Have tried to make changes to the article by adding sources and citations. The draft is vastly different from the deleted article. Many more credible sources have been added. Also there was a spelling mistake in the name of the article and person in the article due to which the sources available were not seen by the reviewers and administrators when searched. 


Kuruvillac (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:48, 18 August 2020 review of draft by VoteFair


The admin who handled my new article submission -- Draft:Pairwise vote counting -- said that a "split request" was needed, so I wrote on the appropriate talk page -- at Condorcet method -- a split request: [1]

There has been no response so I'm asking if I should be making the split request differently. If so, where or how do I make that request?

In the "old days" I created articles and split articles directly, but the rules have changed since then. Back then I could create the new page and then edit the page that has a bit of overlapping content, and point to the new page. But under the new rules I can't edit the existing page until the new page has been moved from draft status to online status, and that request was denied.

Thank you for your help! VoteFair (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VoteFair (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:26:03, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Shivaniik


Shivaniik (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivaniik: If you don't actually ask a question, then nobody can help you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Rajat Verma has been declined twice and now rejected, it will not be considered further, it has no reliable sources and no indication whatsoever how the subject would pass WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:03, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Shivaniik


Shivaniik (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly demanding that a rejected article be reviewed is a good way to find yourself scrutinised more heavily. What is your connexion to Rajat Verma? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 17:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:22, 18 August 2020 review of submission by Shivaniik


Shivaniik (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 18:01:54, 18 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nike.rabadiya



Nike.rabadiya (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=973696322"