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 Sharrisonhuang (talk | contribs) at 08:44, 3 September 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 28

06:21:35, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Karthik CL


I have included a few more notable inclusions into the page. As the founder and head of one of India's largest Education based companies, I feel that notability should not be an issue especially because the work that he is doing with the government on education policy. Please let me know what I can do in order to prove the notability of the subject. Karthik CL (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added exaxtly one link since the rejection, http://www.businessworld.in/author/Guest-Author/Satya-Narayanan-R-83813/, which appears to be a listing of articles by the subject, and is therefore not significant coverage or realy independent of the subject. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have included more links on the page now. Could you please have a look at it?

07:27:48, 28 August 2020 review of draft by SagnicChongder12


SagnicChongder12 (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SagnicChongder12 You don't ask a question, but what you have written is not yet suitable as a Wikipedia article. A Wikipedia article must be more than a basic information listing, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, in this case, that of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SagnicChongder12 If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:44:44, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash


Studyash (talk) 10:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:46:04, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash


Studyash (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This submission lacks reliable sources and fails WP:NACTOR. We arent interested in another Seigenthaler. The contact section will be removed. If anyone wants to contact the subject, they can look at the homepage. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:17:09, 28 August 2020 review of submission by SKYORANGE123

Come on Accept it their is no reliable source for her All this information is collected from Instagram

SKYORANGE123 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SKYORANGE123 That is exactly why it can not be accepted, the subject is simply not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:05:05, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash


Studyash (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Studyash: see 2 sections above. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:33, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Pnwcob


Thank you for reviewing the content, but can I ask one question before I abandon the effort? In developing this page, I followed the same architecture as the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Student_Advertising_Competition

I know the history of the event isn't there, but the content is pretty similar. Have I done something wrong in trying to stick to the example? I noticed they only had their own website sourced, but this one provides external support. Again, I just had to ask so I can understand for future efforts. Thanks in advance! Matt Pnwcob (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pnwcob Unfortunately you chose a really bad example to follow, the Digital Marketing Competition article has just been deleted as blatant promotion of a non-notable topic. Following examples is generally a bad idea, rather follow the basic guidelines at Your first article. If you still want to look at examples, do make sure they have a "Good article" or even "Feature article" quality rating - which you can check on the article's Talk page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:20, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Harpaalsingh


Thank you for reviewing my article. I really appreciate the minimum time being the team have taken to review. I would like to know the mistakes to improve the article and make it to publish. I have mentioned the real Citations within the article to verify the Authenticity of the article subject. What kind of the secondary sources the WIKIPEDIA Team looking for? You can review our official website of Anand International College of Engineering to check the real existence. Please help me out to resolve the issues and publish this article. Thank you in advance!

--Harpaalsingh (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Harpaalsingh[reply]

@Harpaalsingh: The simplest answer is that you would have to find news articles, magazine articles, that sort of thing, which talk in detail about the subject. No press releases, because press releases are primary sources, not secondary, since the information comes from the school itself. Pro tip: "premier" is marketing speech and that has no place in an encyclopedia. We write in a dispassionate tone, not in a tone reverent of the organisation. This is part of why we strongly discourage people who have a conflict of interest from editing articles they are related to. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:08:56, 28 August 2020 review of submission by 39.41.159.39

Dhoom is the fifth highest grossing film franchise in Indian Cinema. 39.41.159.39 (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That does not change the points raised by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:39, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Iloveyoga

Excessive information was removed and what remains is basic info, pulled from reputable sources, about a popular website for baby names as well as information on its creation 20 years ago. The subject of this page - BabyNames.com - is used as a source all across Wikipedia pages so I feel that it only makes sense to have more information available about this commonly used resource. Iloveyoga (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:06:44, 28 August 2020 review of draft by Jean1010101010101101010101010


I don't understand why my draft still refused, i would like to understand why. 

The reason given is "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." by AngusWOOF could you please take a look ?

The article is about a smartphone, most technical details are extracted from the vendor site is that the not reliable source ?

I also provided details on the OS used, how to do some things (like go into DLOAD), maybe as a primary source of information : is that bad regarding to wikipedia rules ?

Please give me some more verbose information on the causes of reject (could be the form, the background)

If the article is just too bad, just tell me why but I really which to add this page and maybe on my others smartphones later :)

Thanks for reply, don't hit me :)

Jean1010101010101101010101010 (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean1010101010101101010101010: Wikipedia is mainly interested in what independent sources have writen about the subject, as subjects tend to write more favourable about themselves. An please consider changing you username, its overly long and hard to read or spell. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:39, 28 August 2020 review of submission by Oxyrinchus

Not sure how it is not sufficiently notable. The is a public figure. Please stop deleting. Oxyrinchus (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyrinchus I have explained already on my talk page. Please consult WP:NACTOR and WP:V. Just because someone is a public figure doesn't mean they automatically get a Wikipedia article. As well, the "personal communication" section makes it very clear you have a WP:COI. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

Request on 02:39:40, 29 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Q at MSA


Hi. I’m having difficulties drafting an article for an economic and social development consulting firm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:MarketShare_Associates.

First off, I’ll disclose that I’ve been paid by MarketShare Associates (MSA) for my contributions to Wikipedia, as also indicated on my userpage. However, I’m not a staff member, and my mandate is foremost to work with Wikipedia editors to ensure the article’s content is legitimately worthy of inclusion. I'm keen to edit any or all parts of the article in order to achieve this. Any feedback that is helpful in this regard is very appreciated.

The reason I’ve been provided for the declined article is: “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.”

I’d appreciate guidance on 2 points to ensure that the article is a meaningful encyclopaedic contribution in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines:

  • Areas to change to ensure the article is written from a neutral point of view;
  • Improving the range of independent, reliable, published sources

A few additional clarifying points to explain the challenges I’m having so far:

  1. In terms of notability, the subject of the article (an international development firm) provides services and research that have been documented extensively in technical and policy documents formally published by other international aid organizations. No original research is needed to extract content for this article beyond what has been addressed directly and in detail in works published by these projects.

  2. On independent, reliable, published sources: The majority of sources referenced in this article are published by international aid organizations (international organizations like the UN, NGOs like Habitat for Humanity, foundations, think tanks, academia, and other private firms), rather than the subject being discussed. The development projects wholly own and have control over the content of the published works. Based #1 and #2, I believe I’ve met the criteria for verifiability and notability.

  3. On neutrality: I believe I’ve culled the advertorial language from the article. Which other areas likely need attention? The objective is to include the legitimately impactful work that MSA has contributed to helping other international development organizations.

If there are other areas you’d flag for improvement, please suggest! Thank you for your help!


Q at MSA (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this bullet by bullet.
  1. Merely providing services does not count for notability, even if this is documented. We would need to see professional reviews of those services for them to matter.
  2. Aid organisations are generally not acceptable sources, especially if they work with or make use of the company's services (as this effectively makes them a surrogate for the company, and thus no longer third-party as far as Wikipedia sourcing is concerned).
  3. The article as writ still reads like an investment brochure trying extremely hard to fly under the radar; the "Approach and Services", "Focus Areas", and "Notable Research" in particular are incredibly problematic from a neutrality standpoint due to blacking out Buzzword Bingo cards, being overly detailed, and going off onto not-directly-relevant tangents.
While it is nice that you have disclosed, in my experience as an editor and -en-help regular it's absurdly difficult for a user in your position to be able to write something that falls in line with WP:Neutral point of view simply because it requires a tone that practically nowhere else does and due to inherent bias as a result of your job. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:19:04, 29 August 2020 review of submission by Csvijay141987


Csvijay141987 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a vehicle to promote your webshop, and I feel like I saw this submission before... Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:04:18, 29 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash


Studyash (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studyash You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage(more than a brief mention or press release) to support the article's content. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Note that itn't their fist time they create a section here in the last days. My browser says me that there are 4 section in total, including this one. Maybe send the draft to MfD? Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:16:32, 29 August 2020 review of draft by Imi Ike Nui


I am trying to create a page "Kapaemahu (film)" for the animated short film Kapaemahu, which is already mentioned on a few other Wikipedia pages and which is a legit subject (noted in Variety Magazine and other trade and professional journals, Oscar qualified, etc.) But after I aw the review process might take 2-3 months I went to the internet and saw the suggestion of how to get the page published directly (subject to deletion0 I copy-pasted the content into a new page form and added a "suggested deletion" to the draft page. Now it looks like both pages are rejected? Sorry to be so amateur- how to fix???

Imi Ike Nui (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imi Ike Nui, The copy and paste move breaks the enquire traceability that Wikipedia requires, so is invalid. The draft has simply been declined. I suggest you resubmit it.
There is no deadline on Wikipedia, so the review will take the time it takes. Fiddle Faddle 19:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, cut-and-paste moves are essentially internal copyvio thanks to the licencing (C&P moves don't provide attribution). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:08, 29 August 2020 review of submission by Rhodium66


Dear friends, I have a question concerning the draft article "Pomogailo Anatoliy". Unfortunately, it has been declined. I have a question - why are the references not enough for Wikipedia? They do show the texts of publications concerning the subject of the article. In addition, the reference to the web-site "math-net.ru", the reference to the web-site of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the reference to the web-site "lifelib.ru" and the reference to the "Intellectual system of the thematic research of the scientometric data" - all of them are the independant and publidhed sources of information in Russia concerning the subject of the article. All these web-sites are the international data bases of the articles and details about their authors. The subject matter of the article is the Soviet and Russian scientist - so, the information about his articles are the main part of the references. I do not understand - why are they not reliable and not enough for Wikipedia? Could ypu please clarify it? So that I could fix the draft of the article. Looking forward to your reply. Thank you!

Kind regards, Rhodium66 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Rhodium66[reply]

Rhodium66 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhodium66: We are not interested in another Seigenthaler. Every single claim needs to be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it. If no such sources exist for a claim, then that claim must be removed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 20:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:18:55, 29 August 2020 review of draft by Dyokomizo


I wrote this draft of an article about Code Ocean and it was rejected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Code_Ocean

Code Ocean is basically a scientific researcher's tool, so there's no significant mention of it on mainstream media.

Both Nature and IEEE published articles about them, but they also partnered with Code Ocean so neither are "independent" sources.

This draft is now stuck in limbo because of this Catch-22.

Dyokomizo (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dyokomizo. If multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of it turn up, then Draft:Code Ocean may be resubmitted. If such sources don't exist, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. Billions of things are unsuitable subjects. I don't see any dilemma here. If you are editing with Wikipedia's interests foremost, then you shouldn't want an article that fails the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria. If you are instead driven by some outside motivation, then you shouldn't be writing about this topic here. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

00:17:31, 30 August 2020 review of draft by Blueboyto


This is the first time that I've submitted a WikiProject Articles for creation. I'm not very computer savvy and I'm unsure of the structure to how this should be submitted. I would appreciate some feedback moving forward.Blueboyto (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Blueboyto (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboyto: I could submit it for review for you, howewer, if it were to be submitted it would be rejected quickly. I have identified the following problems:

08:37:08, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Ruthwyshogrod

I wrote this page and it was rejected because of supposed conflict of interest that I had. I was told the page "gives the impression that I have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic." What I don't understand is that this page is a translation from an existing (published, approved) Wikipedia page in Hebrew on the same topic - https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/סמדר_נהב. I was paid to translate the page from Hebrew to English. Beyond that I have no financial stake. So I wonder if there is any way to reverse the decision to reject?

Ruthwyshogrod (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruthwyshogrod: ☒N Not done and not likely to be done Different Wikipedias are different projects and possibly different rules. See WP:OSE. I cant read hebrew, so I cant tell if the hebrew article needsto be deleted as well. This draft is a highely promotional press release full of puffery. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:37:30, 30 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Eswnav



Eswnav (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move this article

@Eswnav:  Not done. It still hasn't improved. The fact that you try so hard to get this to mainspace lets me question wether you ahev a WP:COI to disclose? Note that if it were moved to article space, it would get taken to AFD very soon. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:10, 30 August 2020 review of draft by Arif917


I am unable to make my article in Wiki format. Even I am trying to learn from a template but it seems for me like a programming language. Hence I want experts to manage my data and show it like Wiki format.

Arif917 (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arif917: You can have a look at Help:Wikitext or the Wikipedia article on Wikisyntax to learn more about the syntax of Wikipedia and other Wikis. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:17, 30 August 2020 review of submission by IISL


IISL (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:29:41, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Ponmaakishan


Pon Maa Kishan A 11:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Ponmaakishan, specify what do you need. GeraldWL 11:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:50:25, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Wikihelp2022

hello dear i would like to know why is it rejected, this page is dedicated to the family of Almohamed it just lets old ancestors who passed away/alive to be seen if his/here family member is alive or passed away while honoring the family. Wikihelp2022 (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihelp2022 Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize our families. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikihelp2022, It is just a collection of names with no encyclopaedic significance nor notability. Wikipedia is not here to honour families Fiddle Faddle 12:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:54:44, 30 August 2020 review of submission by 88.201.67.204

this wiki needs to be uploaded for the support of the royal family

88.201.67.204 (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Fiddle Faddle 12:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:55, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Yerkhanat

What can I do in order to publish this article? I think that I have already provided many sources. Yerkhanat (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please reference the comments and links left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:33, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Twag1105


The company that is the subject of this article plays a significant role in the tax software arena. It has over 600 employees worldwide. Other tax software companies have similar articles, see for example Intuit, the content and style of which this article attempted to emulate.

I respectfully ask for re-review, noting that the company is a significant contributor to its industry.

Twag1105 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twag1105, There is nothing in the draft to indicate the notability you wish to display.
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.
The references you have chosen, in the main, are PR pieces or regurgitated PR pieces.
If you believe it has sufficient merit there is nothing to prevent your starting a new draft with excellence of referencing. This draft can go no further Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I would note that there are nearly two dozen references cited, only one of which is to the company website (Which I'm happy to remove if that is preferable). The majority point to trade publications that are independent of the organization. Your advice on how to improve would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twag1105 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:51, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Twag1105

Seeking suggestions on how to improve this page. Previous criticism included lack of independent references, which has been fixed. there are 20+ references using independent trade sources. The content has also been reviewed to remove any inadvertent advertising language, and structure has been fixed to emulate articles about similar organizations, principally Intuit. Advice on how to proceed is appreciated. Twag1105 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twag1105, https://www.prweb.com/releases/safesend_returns_and_taxcaddy_launch_integration/prweb16001396.htm is a press release as are many others. It appears that you misunderstand referencing. Please read what I wrote to you above Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle Again, thank you for the clarification. I do understand your concern about the reference you cited, and will remove it. Most of the others point to CPA Advisor, Accounting Today, AccountingWeb, and other independent sources. Is the recommendation that the reference you cited above be removed and then it should be suitable for publication? Your continued advice is appreciated. Twag1105 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twag1105, run 100% of them against WP:42. I looked at the first six. Of those I see one that may stand the test. Your problem is that you have camouflaged any good references with poor ones Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle Faddle Understood, I appreciate your comment. I'll review the draft and references and make the best references stand out more prominently. Twag1105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twag1105, lose the bad ones entirely. Fiddle Faddle 17:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once you have done so please approach the reviewer who rejected the draft and ask them if they will reconsider the rejection Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Massar

Kindly check the draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Massar_Solutions. I have worked hard to improve the article as per the instructions of reviewers. The company Massar is owned by the Government of UAE and Abu Dhabi. 51% is owned by Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Authority and 49% is owned by Abu Dhabi National Energy Company PJSC (TAQA). Thank you for your help (Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

18:17:14, 30 August 2020 review of submission by Kurosawa89

I have added more information to this page, including band members and lyrical content. I hope this helps get the page approved. Kurosawa89 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:16:02, 30 August 2020 review of draft by Smohan94


I wanted to change the title of the page to be Ranbir Singh Latayan instead of Dr. Ranbir Singh. This is due to feedback I received from a reviewer. Thanks!

Smohan94 (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smohan94:  Done Article can now be found at Draft:Ranbir Singh Latayan. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

00:47:48, 31 August 2020 review of submission by 2804:14D:7E82:A39F:E1A6:CA7A:866:C4F8


2804:14D:7E82:A39F:E1A6:CA7A:866:C4F8 (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Because it's a very famous object show worldwide and has atleast 600 Million views, and it's very well made[reply]

And yet there is not one reference in the article that would suggest that any journalist from any reliable source has ever seen it! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:17, 31 August 2020 review of submission by ColourfulKharacter


Hi. I am trying to understand the notability for indie films. This one, 1956 Central Travancore, has been picked up by film festivals and received considerable coverage in independent media, and yet it is rejected for publication repeatedly. I've seen far less substantiated articles being accepted for publication, like Savam by the same director coincidentally, for instance. Or this one that was a winner at the same festival.

I have read the notability guidelines backwards and forwards, and the specific entry of film too. I feel that this entry qualifies, but apparently it doesn't. I am super confused at this point, so I would appreciate some help.

ColourfulKharacter (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ColourfulKharacter My suggestion would be that you ask the reviewer of your draft directly why they made the decision they did. In any event, please see other stuff exists. It is usually a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist; those articles could be problematic as well. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.(I've tagged one of the articles you mention as having issues) This is why each article is judged on its own merits.
Your draft seems to be cited largely to press release-type articles or other routine announcements. (I say that while noting that I cannot understand the non-English sources given) This is not the significant coverage required. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you for your reply. I understand that there are lacunae in the process; I was not using the other articles as an argument for mine to exist. I am merely pointing out that I am confused by what is considered notable for indie films specifically, because there appear to be entries that are notable in their own right but lack significant coverage.
I have already read other stuff exists as well. I was asking for help to understand if there is a rubric I missed about indie films, which by their nature do not receive significant coverage, but are notable for the strides they make in non-commercial cinema.
Thank you for your suggestion of contacting the reviewer; I will do so. ColourfulKharacter (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ColourfulKharacter I am not aware of specific notability criteria for independent films; all films are judged using the same criteria. Unfortunately, the requirement that a subject get significant coverage in reliable sources does prevent some topics from appearing on Wikipedia either significantly or at all- but verification is an important principle of Wikipedia. If an independent film has made strides in non-commercial cinema, somebody unaffiliated with a particular film needs to say so and explain why. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:41, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Studyash


Studyash (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:15:55, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Alvin kipchumba kosgei

Request on 08:15:55, 31 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Alvin kipchumba kosgei


i do not have the suitable experience to continue editing and researching this amazing article that requires a suitable and experienced editor i hope it would not be a problem.thanks


Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would need reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Not acceptable sources include:

09:12:05, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Aie555


I've reviewed the draft and removed all sources that do not meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability. I've added some new sources that should make a better case for notability.

Aie555 (talk) 09:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aie555 The draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Swapping out the references will not solve the issue of notability; please review the definition of a notable company. No amount of editing can confer notability on this business, it must be apparent from significant coverage in published, independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you for the clarification. I've reviewed the listed resources prior to my edits and tried to adapt the draft accordingly. Since the last time the draft has been reviewed there have been some new developments which are cited using new authoritative and independent sources. If the new coverage is not enough, what steps can I take to help publish this article? Aie555 (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aie555 I see that this is the only topic you have edited about, do you have a connection with Memsource? 331dot (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Yes I do. I've disclosed my conflict of interests on my user page.
Aie555 You don't say what your COI is. If you are an employee or other paid representative, you need to make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement. As I said, no matter how much you edit your draft, you cannot confer notability on this company. It depends on significant coverage in independent reliable sources that show how this company meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable company. If the company does not meet this definition, it would not merit an article at this time. Not every company does, even within the same field. Ideally, an article should be written by an independent editor that has taken note of significant coverage of this company in reliable sources and chooses on their own to write about it. If you have been tasked with creating this draft, you will have to disappoint your superiors- pursuing this further will, to be frank, only waste your own time and that of others. Feel free to show your superiors this discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you for your reply. I believe that I've made the appropriate disclosure, as I will neither receive or expect to receive any financial compensation for my edits. I have also not been tasked to edit it, my contributions are entirely voluntary. As for the issue of notability, I've added a few sources relating to recent developments which were covered by independent and reputable sources (Forbes, Slator, CzechCrunch). My other edits were primarily focused on removing primary sources, sources of questionable independence, and anything that resembled a sales pitch. Aie555 (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aie555 What exactly is the nature of your conflict of interest? Something can be promotional without being a "sales pitch". Being promotional does not just mean soliciting customers or selling something, at least to Wikipedia. Promotional includes merely telling about the subject. 331dot (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I understand your point regarding promotional content, but this article could only be considered promotional if the provided sources do not make a convincing case for notability. I believe that my edits have addressed the concerns of previous reviewers and have gone further to establish notability. I would welcome any substantive feedback on the draft itself and the provided sources. As for my conflict of interests, I work in the language technology industry and have professional relationship with Memsource. I have not been tasked to write this and do not expect any compensation, financial or otherwise. Aie555 (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, swapping out the sources doesn't change the notability of this company. You could ask the reviewer who rejected your draft if your changes change their opinion, and I certainly don't speak for them, but I don't think it will succeed. It may help if you specifically cite the parts of the notability guidelines you feel you have met, and run all the sources through the criteria described here. Unless you can convince them to change their mind, there isn't much more that you can do. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:32:11, 31 August 2020 review of draft by 2A02:587:B80C:700:15B1:918B:9D88:DD1C


Although the process is still ongoing for a draft biography of Vassilios Joseph Lefakinis (a pioneer businessman from Greece), I see there is a comment that implies the article is a SPAM. Where this stands for? What do I need to pay attention in order not to have such characterisation? Thanks! 2A02:587:B80C:700:15B1:918B:9D88:DD1C (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing such a comment. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:53, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Dharmeshtank02


I created page on my biography but request rejected and message appear that

Hello, Dharmeshtank02! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

please be needful


Dharmeshtank02 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmeshtank02 Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage (like the news) have chosen on their own to say about you. If such coverage exists about you, you shouldn't be the one to write any article about you(nor anyone that you designate). Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use actual social media. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:07, 31 August 2020 review of draft by Eswnav


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

Anyone improve this article.

Request on 13:58:43, 31 August 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Ackee123


Hi, I would like to start over with this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adegoke_Steve_Colson

Please can soemone help me? I understand the issues better now. To be clear the person who I spoke with about the content which I had based my material on said that he is happy for me to actually use his content, but I would rather start anew to have a clearly encyclopedic article. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, but have had to sort out the family health stuff, and things arebetter now


Ackee123 (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:22, 31 August 2020 review of submission by Abbas Kwarbai


Abbas Kwarbai (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


September 1

00:42:30, 1 September 2020 review of draft by PeteStacman24


Hello, how do I shorten the name of my draft article from "Izuku Midoriya (character)" to just "Izuku Midoriya"? (Asking since the "character" in the draft's header just feels pointless.)

PeteStacman24 (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PeteStacman24: I've made the change for you, and you can now find the article at Draft:Izuku Midoriya. Since the non-Draft article Izuku Midoriya is a redirect, there's no current need to disambiguate with "(character)". Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:02:13, 1 September 2020 review of submission by Aniket Gaikwad46


Aniket Gaikwad46 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC) } I'm aniket Sandeep gaikwad and I'm Instagram influencer and cricketer[reply]

i Born in 20/09/2002

Age:18


I upload photos and videos on Instagram as a Instagram influencer

I'm cricketer and I played So many matches

And the point you are makin here is what? Please do NOT create a new section every time you answer. Just answer. Fiddle Faddle 07:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Aniket Gaikwad46, Wikipedia is not a social media site where you can make a profile for yourself. Wikipedia hosts articles about people who meet its notability criteria. Pi (Talk to me!) 22:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:39, 1 September 2020 review of submission by LucyNakahara


I have again changed my article does it look better?

LucyNakahara (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing changed since last decline. You don't expect us to look up the simple things, right: difference This still doesn't meets WP:BLP and WP:NPERSON. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:15:40, 1 September 2020 review of draft by IanTEB

Hi! My draft article, Nick Robinson (YouTuber), was declined 6 days ago on August 26, and since then, I've added additional reliable secondary sources. Does it look any better?

IanTEB (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IanTEB, No. Lose any of your massive list of references that do not give significant coverage to Robinson. Read WP:42, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:SELFPUB. You are bombarding us with references and many have to go.
More references is not the way to go. Fewer and better references is. If a reviewer cannot see the wood rom the trees they will often pass by without reviewing your draft. Why? Because they are human. Fiddle Faddle 20:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:19:18, 1 September 2020 review of draft by Wiki Editor From NY


How do I submit this page for review?

Wiki Editor From NY (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Editor From NY, you use the blue button at the bottom of the big grey box that is hiding in plain sight on your draft Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:11:35, 1 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Skancc


I have added source and reference, Iam not understanding what Else I have add kindly guide me


Skancc (talk) 22:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skancc. Indian Talent Magazine publishes artist-authored profiles. It is basically advertising, not an independent source. The remaining cited sources are passing mentions of Mahadev, not significant coverage. In the reviewer's judgement, sources do not exist that are independent, reliable, secondary, and contain significant coverage. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

11:21:38, 2 September 2020 review of submission by Ciamasky1


Have made changes, requesting advice Ciamasky1 (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ciamasky1. The cited sources are directory-type listings instead of significant coverage (indiancompany.info, economictimes, tofler.in), or are regurgitations of press releases, so not independent. Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem. There is no option to re-submit the draft because volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:27, 2 September 2020 review of submission by Dereena

Hi, how to check the quality of content without posting it directly into the Wikipedia?

Dereena (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Dereena#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:40:03, 2 September 2020 review of submission by E. Miller1

Please review edits, as I believe they are more in line with the guidelines. Thank you. E. Miller1 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No... it is still just advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:33:55, 2 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Evan0512


I went into Google and there were several reliable sources that relate to Lubelska: Only PopKult and Stock Spirits. Second, I didn't see either English or Polish sources that tell more about Lubelska. All I see are pictures of the vodka, but I looked at Stock Spirits. It was somehow copied from adverts partially, and when I search Google "Lubelska," it shows mostly unreliable and useless sources. The image about old Lubelska photos came from Wordpress and when I search Lubelska in Polish wikipedia (for example: w:pl:Lubelska), it doesn't show up.

Evan0512 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evan0512: As fascinating as your blow-by-blow description of your day is, I cannot divine your question from it. What assistance do you seek from this help desk? --Worldbruce (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

Request on 06:58:44, 3 September 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Unpluggedbrain


Hi, I am a new editor on Wikipedia, I work at Betconstruct (disclosure on user page), the company has asked me to write an article for the company. The article I wrote was rejected twice, once because it sounded like a promotion (I managed to fix this issue with the help of another editor) and now because of WP:GNG. I am looking for directions and advice to fix the issue and make an article that fits with Wikipedia's standards. BetConstruct is a B2B company, it doesn't get much media coverage, but it is still a major actor in the gambling industry, comparable to Betsson and Kindred Group or BBiN, thus I still believe that the company is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.

I would like to collaborate with a more experienced user to prove notability and fix any other issues that the article has.

Thanks in advance


Unpluggedbrain (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unpluggedbrain If your company does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. You need to be able to show that the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company with such sources. The requirement for significant coverage in independent reliable sources does result in some subjects not being as covered(or not covered at all) on Wikipedia compared to others, unfortunately. Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 07:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot It does get coverage, but mainly on websites covering the gambling industry, such as SBC News and igamingbusiness (sources used on the Wikipedia pages of other B2B gambling companies). It has been mentioned quite a bit on independent media but the articles are generally not about the company itself but it's brands, so it's a passing mention "brand x subsidiary of BetConstruct". It has also gotten a lot of press coverage locally, in Armenia, would that be enough to establish notability? Thanks. Unpluggedbrain (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unpluggedbrain As stated in this portion of the notability guidelines, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Only being written about in trade publications doesn't help establish notability. I would add that the draft has been rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. To be frank- and I apologize- you will only be wasting your own time and that of others by pursuing this further, at least until your company receives significant coverage outside of trade publications. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I understand, well thanks for the clarifications. A final question, if and when the company gets more coverage (let's say in a year or so), how should I proceed? Unpluggedbrain (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unpluggedbrain You would need to start a fresh draft and submit it for review, just as you did your first one. If you do not edit your current draft for six months, it will be deleted due to inactivity and then you could recreate the draft in a year(or whenever). 331dot (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Ok, thanks again for the help! See you around.

07:53:54, 3 September 2020 review of draft by JW254


Hello, I need help merging the contents on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Havoc_of_Choice to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wanjiru_Koinange.

The feedback given was to merge the contents on the book with that of the author. Thanks

07:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)JW254 (talk)

08:43:26, 3 September 2020 review of submission by Haruto.S


I have added more information to the article, including the history section and more references. I hope it has become more competent to be included in Wiki. If not, it would be very appreciated if you could let me know your advice on further improvement.


Haruto.S (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


08:44:50, 3 September 2020 review of submission by Sharrisonhuang


Sharrisonhuang (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=976501172"