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 Pilotmichael (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 16 October 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


October 10

01:43:27, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


What constitutes an interview? If a subject is quoted in an article, does that count as an interview? Or is it considered a secondary source because the quote was pulled from a primary source?

KellyChristineN (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject is merely quoted and the source otherwise doesn't talk about them in depth, that is not significant enough of coverage to use. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 03:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of sources, none of them are particularly useful. The vast majority are name-drops/sound bites or press releases. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KellyChristineN, I note your declaration that you are not a paid editor. Thank you. I have removed the banner.
I have examined the draft and left you a substantive comment upon it which I hope you will allow you to make confident progress Fiddle Faddle 07:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:06:05, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA

this page was updated with sources 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have added exactly one source. Still no evidence of WP:NARTIST or WP:NCREATIVE, not to mention WP:BLP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:37, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Shahnawaz rules


I want to delete my Draft page this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lahore_Motorway_City

Please delete it . i am trying from month

Shahnawaz rules (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahnawaz rules: There is no reason to delete the draft. If it remains unedited for six months, it will be deleted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:36:56, 10 October 2020 review of draft by AlbusHaversham


Hi guys, can someone help? I am new to Wiki and trying to improve articles on Feline Health. I am writing one on Feline urethral obstruction (it's in draft form atm, not submitted) but I want to change the title of the page. How can I do this?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 11:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlbusHaversham: You may find Your First Article usefull. Your draft currently has exactly zero sources, and therefore fails WP:V. As for changing the title, this would require a move. You can request a specific move at Wikipedia:Requestsed moves. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know it has zero sources! That's why it's a draft and not submitted for review yet. The sources will be added once the text has been written. My question was just about changing the title. Moving it seems a hassle. How can I delete it and start again? AlbusHaversham (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlbusHaversham. On the hassle scale, deletion is exponentially higher than moving. "Deletion" doesn't actually remove anything, it's just an administrator hiding versions from the view of the average person. The right thing to do in the circumstances is to move the draft to a new name. The plain and simple process is to click "Move" (probably on the "More" menu in the upper right), overtype the current title with the new title, enter an explanation in the reason box, and click the "Move Page" button. Not much to it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Worldbruce. That's a lucid and very helpful explanation. The hassle scale explains things perfectly! AlbusHaversham (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I can't find the Move Command on my draft article page - there is no "More" menu in the upper right corner of my page. Where can I find it?

AlbusHaversham (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:34:48, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Samjoka


Here is an independent source: https://www.newgeography.com/users/sami-karam Creator can provide all needed proof. Further several of the links under "notable articles" in the proposed page are from independent well-known publications with the person's name shown on their sites. Thank you.

Samjoka (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its probbably independent, yes, but at least this particular page on newgeography.com doesn't appear to be WP:SIGCOV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not on its own, but in combination with the other independent links provided under notable articles?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samjoka (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:07:01, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020

I have made a lot of changes to the page as suggested by the reviewers. But no reviewer seems to be reviewing it for quite a while. Please could you help(Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:30:17, 10 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Digimasters.in

{{anchor|17:30:17, 10 October 2020 review of submission by Digimasters.in



Digimasters.in (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:08, 10 October 2020 review of draft by Mysteriumen


What is the best practice in reuse of sources cited in an article about a unique subject. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysteriumen: I am not entirely sure what you mean. Does WP:REFBEGIN help you? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Schmidt I see. I could easily plagiarize WP:PLAG an article by “stealing” its sources, or what is the consensus/stance on reuse of sources from a cited article? I have built the draft mostly on reading one source, quoting other sources. If if I include references to sources quoted in an article, I am hiding the fact that my article Draft:CONARC_(Consulta_National_de_Rebeldías_y_Capturas_/_National_Register_of_Fugitives_and_Arrests)_in_Argentina relies heavily on one source. Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 18:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriumen, Generally we expect an article to be broadly based, not relying in a single source. My normal recommendation for creating an article is to:
  • Identify references that pass muster. WP:42 is a useful guide
  • From the references, extract the facts that the article requires
  • Organise those facts into a storyboard.
  • Write the article, with the facts cited by broadly based references
Putting the question back to you, is what you are doing/planning congruent with that concept? Fiddle Faddle 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent Thanks. I think I am.
There is the issue of the subject independent sources. Because the subject is a governmental database, the only truly non-independent sources are that of the government operating them, I believe.
There is the issue of the article taking the form of an article about the controversy (is this a big problem? as it is not clear if the subject is notable without the controversy), and what are independent sources of the controversy, as such. Because the subject of the article is mostly mentioned as a controversy. From the top of my search I find four sources that each demand scrutiny. (http://technologyreview.com / http://washingtonpost.com / http://onezero.medium.com / http://hrw.org ) without including any of the sources they quote. Two of the sources quoted another (hrw.org) and at least one quoted the earliest mention of the subject of my article (onezero.medium.com) Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 19:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mysteriumen, In that case all you can do is your best work. Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:30, 10 October 2020 review of draft by KellyChristineN


I found new articles and got rid of the press releases, but I'm just trying to see what I can and can't use. And I can't seem to get a clear answer to this question. So, I'm asking again, does the subject being quoted at all in the article negate the article as an interview? Or does the subject just have to be mentioned multiple times and not quoted ever?

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyChristineN (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KellyChristineN, where there is significant comment about the subject in addition to interview quotes, then there is a broader balance. 'Significant' tends to mean 'in excess of three normal sized paragraphs'.
As a personal choice I discourage interview pieces entirely, if the article relies on them. If you have three (see WP:THREE excellent references outside any of the more commented upon interview pieces then my attitude relaxes. Fiddle Faddle 19:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KellyChristineN: It might be easier for people to help you if you'd stop creating multiple discussion threads about the same issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:48, 10 October 2020 review of draft by UKArchaeologist


May I please request a review of the previously-declined draft?


IMPROVEMENTS:

I was advised that the article read like an advertisement:

  • I have made significant NPOV edits with the aim of achieving an encyclopedic tone.

I was advised that the article did not provide sufficient evidence of notability:

  • Added newspaper articles discussing work done by the company. The articles contain significant, independent coverage of John Moore Heritage Services (JMHS), some of which are also reliable, secondary sources.
  • Added reference to reliable academic journals which contain very significant coverage of JMHS. Many pieces in academic journals are primary sources and therefore do not prove notability. However, I have included the Oxoniensia chapter from Hugh Coddington and Richard Oram who are not (and have never been) JMHS employees, who provide a synthesis and interpretation of the work done by JMHS in 2013 (similar chapters appear in many of the more recent Oxoniensia volumes, but not all are available online so I thought this would be a nice one for reference).
  • The other references included in this draft are significant, independent, reliable, AND/OR secondary, and may or may not prove notability (I’ll leave that to you who has more experience than I do).

Thank you for your time and consideration. Regardless of your ultimate decision, any further help/advice/feedback is always appreciated.


UKArchaeologist (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UKArchaeologist I'm sorry, but the draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. A Wikipedia article must do more than tell about the subject and what they do; it must show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources how (in this case) the subject meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. For example, Ford Motor Company merits an article not just because they exist and sell cars, it does because multiple independent reliable sources have extensively written about the company and its effects on manufacturing and assembly lines. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:15:59, 10 October 2020 review of submission by 2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA

updated bio of living person

2601:CA:C300:18A0:18F1:E526:40EB:62CA (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to show that this musician meets the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable musician. Just linking to their "mixtapes" is not sufficient, as it is not difficult for any person to post their music online. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:25:42, 10 October 2020 review of submission by FrankCarlotta1

I don't understand why this got rejected and I'm looking for assistance. Here was my response to the editor: Draft talk:VING Organic Vodka From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigationJump to search Contested deletion[edit source] This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (Ving Vodka is an extremely important spirit to be notated on Wikipedia for the public in regards to how the industry is changing to organic spirits in the alcohol business. Ving has affected the industry globally. As stated in the text, Ving provides education and clean consumption options that didn't exist before. Please reference the articles, awards, and press the brand has garnered. Also, there is no other spirit in the world that is focused on wellness and health in the spirits industry. There are many, many other brands on Wikipedia that have similar or, less education attributes that can clearly be misconstrued as advertisements pages for the brands eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%27s_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belvedere_Vodka, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Goose_(vodka), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Head_Vodka, etc. In addition, it's very important for Wikipedia to be up-to-date on women-owned businesses and how important they are to American economic growth and to inspire young women to start their own businesses. Vonge, LLC, Ving Vodka, and Flo Vinger have been certified by the WBENC, which is the most respected women's business certification. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have or address any Wikipedia concerns. ) --FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC) FrankCarlotta1 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:29:06, 10 October 2020 review of submission by GehrigF

I was wondering why my sandbox page is going to be deleted. It's about me, I'm an artist, and wanted it to be published since I don't have a Wikipedia page about me GehrigF (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GehrigF: See WP:PROMO and WP:MUSICBIO. You are not notable. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

01:44:12, 11 October 2020 review of submission by 96.52.63.203

Hello. Could you please tell me which reference listed is unreliable? Thank you. 96.52.63.203 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:54:41, 11 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Iam randiki


I believe Rev Robert Ngatia is notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia. Based in kenya, there are not so many online references. Physical references are available if need be.


Another article worth writing a bout is Bishop Dr Mark Kariuki. He is the general oversea of deliverance church international. He is the General Overseer of Deliverance Church Kenya as well as the former Chairman of Evangelical Alliance of Kenya (EAK). He is the moderator of the inter-religious Council of Kenya and a member of the African Council of Apostles

Iam randiki (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the current draft does not show that. Please also note that Wikipedia's definition of the term notability is a bit different than usual. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iam randiki Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to have significant coverage and be independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:17, 11 October 2020 review of submission by 124.244.183.202


124.244.183.202 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)this is very important[reply]

But it has no sources and Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Please read Your first article for more information. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:26:50, 11 October 2020 review of submission by SONIANKIT135

Sir I lives in Delhi and I know the above named school is a famous school in Delhi, the school has also named in many news channels also and that's why I want to request a re-review. SONIANKIT135 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:30:21, 11 October 2020 review of submission by SONIANKIT135

Sir you can delete this draft. SONIANKIT135 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:45:07, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Scientist124

Hi, I would like my recent sandbox article to be reviewed again and accepted because I am not theorising about this supposed event in the article that I submitted.Scientist124 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist124 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed again and tagged for deletion as blatant hoax. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:57, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Ali fattahi project


Ali fattahi project (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to be a successful essayist Can you please help me for the first article? Thankful

15:08:40, 11 October 2020 review of draft by Hobbimasak


Hi, I am a food reviewer in Jakarta, Indonesia who likes to write about F&B cultural development in the region. This is my first post on Wikipedia, not sure about what mistake I made. I am writing about a food site that many Indonesians are currently using, and would think that it will be worth documenting on Wikipedia. Hobbimasak (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbimasak Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of a business or merely telling about a business. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. "Significant coverage" does not include brief mentions, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, the company website, or other primary sources. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:12, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Steven9102001


Steven9102001 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i tried to make a page for a local compony but it was rejected y maybe you could Willis Talk owners Steven Willis and Sheila Acosta out of Turner Oregon 97392


Willis talk is dedicated to post videos about apps, classic vehicles, Games, travel, exploration, shop hunting,

Steven9102001 (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven9102001: Wikipedia only wants articles about companies if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a noteable organisation. None of the sources you added above (which I collapsed) help with that, as they are all user-generated content. Please also note that Wikipedia does not want to promote or "spread the word" about your buissnes, even if its a noble cause. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:22:19, 11 October 2020 review of draft by Fushebjdjwq


Fushebjdjwq (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? Your draft is blank. Theroadislong (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the issues(some improper formatting/text placement) and removed a blacklisted link. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:25, 11 October 2020 review of submission by Robertleyva2002


Robertleyva2002 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy is that guy and he is best known for the best thing he is the man

October 12

01:27:30, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 211.245.121.137


Could there be more details on what needs to be fixed in this article so it does not sound like an ad? There isn't any promotional content and the information is cited. In terms of the content, it is also very similar to other similar software: - Sketch (software) - Figma (software) - Adobe XD

Any help will be greatly appreciated!

211.245.121.137 (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft only confirms the existence of the software and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Press releases and announcements of routine business do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. That's why each draft or article is judged on its own merits. I will tag the articles you mention as problematic as they have some of the same issues as your draft. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:29:39, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Editingwork8

I'm interested in writing about Artificial Intelligence. Please suggest some ideas on which I can write. Editingwork8 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editingwork8 Can I interest you in taking part in an article I endeavour? Need to gather the sources for a section on AI technologyDraft:CONARC (Consulta National de Rebeldías y Capturas / National Register of Fugitives and Arrests) in ArgentinaMysteriumen•♪Ⓜ •♪talk ♪• look 05:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:36, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Playerpage


My draft was rejected with the note "You need to cite secondary sources (such as reviews of the series) to show that it is notable" and a statement that the series is not notable enough for an article. Also a head-pat regarding how to learn to be a "New Editor" when I have been a Wikipedia contributor since 2006. I find this curious (and a little insulting) as the series is connected to the already-covered "Animated Stories From the Bible," and "Animated Stories from the New Testament," which DO have articles on Wikipedia. The sources used are some of the same as with those series, having been produced by the same production company and creative team. This new article is meant to compliment the old ones--all sources are referenced in the same fashion as in those other Wikipedia articles.

Please help me understand why those sources are sufficient for one article but not for another. Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Playerpage (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playerpage: your draft was declined, not rejected. Note that the fact that one artcile exists cannot be cited as an argument for the existence or not-existence of others as articles may slip under the radar, or they may have been created before today's rules were enacted. As this is a volunteer encyclopedia, we can only act on thigns we know about. As for Your draft, it is currently only sourced to imdb.com, which is not a reliable source. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Declining vs. Rejected seems like a distinction without a difference. The article will never appear on Wikipedia unless I make changes that are vague and unspecific. You are not even the same editor who has "declined" my submission. Without more specific information as you *what* is wanted, I cannot provide it. You say that IMDb is considered unreliable, but your policy link only refers to IMDb as being controversial as of 2019, and even then it sounds like it is a gray area that can depend on the entry--and in the end the policy article says IMDb may be used as an external link, anyway. Please explain how an external link is substantially different than a source, when the point is not to provide a review, but to establish existence. This would make sense if the IMDb reference was brand new, but the "Animated Stories" series, consisting of the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Animated Heroes, is a project of established animator Richard Rich and is now a good 30 years old or more. In addition, IMDb and IMDbPro are considered the gold standard for movie information in the movie industry, and have successfully defended their positions as such in court. [1][2]

The only real difference I see between my article and the earlier articles referencing the same series is an external link to television schedules regarding the episodes. Were I to add a similar link, would this satisfy the vague requirements?

Thank you.Playerpage (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is user-editable and as such is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; if courts wish to consider it a reliable source, that is up to them. A link to a TV schedule does little more than confirm the existence of this series; Wikipedia articles must summarize significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Again you are now the third editor declaring the article unfit, and third with a new criteria. There are a plethora of articles on Wikipedia--and in the Britannica Encyclopedia--that do little more than reference the existence of something. Including the other articles regarding this same series. How can it be insufficient for THIS article? As a knowledge reference, I find the "Already existing doesn't mean it should" argument absurd, as is the "user-editable" argument. *Wikipedia* is user-editable. I am trying to establish the baseline article so that users with more knowledge than myself may update it as needed. And again-again-furthermore-also (*eyeroll) the only difference between this article and the acceptable earlier "Animated Stories" articles is the lack of a schedule link. Lastly, are you seriously saying that US court decisions referenced in a periodical as established as the Hollywood Reporter are unconvincing? That implies that Wiki Editors are able to place their own POV above sourcing of any kind. I await further clarification, but at this point I will refrain from commenting any more until I am able to decipher how to proceed. Playerpage (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Playerpage It is true that Wikipedia is not a reliable source in and of itself. Wikipedia should not be used as a source for scholarly works or other similar needs for information; readers should go to the sources articles provide to hear from reliable sources themselves- so they can evaluate them for themselves. Again, if a court considers IMDB a reliable source, that is up to them; we do not. You are free to work to change that(at the reliable sources noticeboard) if you wish. This is not about the POV of us Wikipedia editors, but about sourcing and notability standards that need to be upheld. We do our best as volunteers doing what we can when we can, but until there is a paid staff of editors here, improper articles can and will get through. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/imdb-beats-lawyers-suit-over-alleged-film-date-error
  2. ^ url = https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/imdbs-age-censorship-win-affirmed-by-appeals-court-1299490

09:46:20, 12 October 2020 review of draft by 195.99.60.247


Hello, I am having difficulty with following submission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Actonians_RFC I do not understand what specific additional sources are needed, or what exactly the people reviewing this require. I have taken care to mirror the approaches taken by similar organisations, who have live pages on wikipedia, but I keep getting the submission declined. Thanks, Marc mowen3278


195.99.60.247 (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewers have told you, you have not provided independent reliable sources to support the content of the article. To merit a Wikipedia article, this club must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have only provided sources that are not independent and/or do not offer significant coverage. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Note that as a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us; this is why it is not usually a good idea to pattern what you do after other articles, as those too may be inappropriate. We can only address what we know about. Each draft is judged on its own merits; please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marc mowen3278 Remember to log in before posting. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:09, 12 October 2020 review of submission by SouthernCharm10!


Hello, I understand that my draft has been rejected due to Wikipedia saying that it is contrary to Wiki but I went ahead and followed a similar outline of Trinity Western University. I did not see a difference in their publication to mine.

I have followed the pillars of Wikipedia and do not have any financial gain from this publication. Can you further explain and help me understand the reasons my publication has not been published and what can I do to improve my publication, so it may be publised.

Thank you SouthernCharm10! (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SouthernCharm10! Please note that it is not usually a good argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist too; see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles or article content by us. We can only address what we know about. Note that the article you cite has several maintenance tags for issues that need to be addressed, so it was probably not the best example for you to go by.
Your draft reads as a promotional brochure for the college, as it just tells about the college and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
You do not have to have "financial gain" to be a paid editor. If you are an employee of the college and editing as part of your job duties, you are a paid editor even if you were not specifically instructed or directed to edit by your superiors. If you are just a student, that's not paid editing. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:05, 12 October 2020 review of draft by Monika Antal Craggs


Hi there, I have been tasked to create an entry for the charity I work for (Yorkshire Universities) I am trying to do this during my paid work time. What type of disclaimer should I include? I am trying to make it as objective and neutral as possible to avoid making it sound like a promotion or advertisement and have narrowed it down to the bare minimum facts and included external references. The desired outcome is to have our member universities list and link to the 'YU' wikipedia page as they do with the other membership organisations they belong to. Can you please help me resolve this and publish it?

Monika Antal Craggs (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Antal Craggs First, please review the paid editing policy and make the required formal declaration. Any article about your organization should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The reviewer, though declining your draft, seems to think that it is possible to do that, but you need to provide those independent reliable sources. The draft should focus less on what the organization says about itself(the History section is also completely unsourced) and more on what others say about it. You in essence need to forget everything you know about your organization and only write based on what the independent sources state. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:17:26, 12 October 2020 review of draft by Template:Smko47

I submitted a biography for John D. Rees over 2 months ago and I was wondering when it will be reviewed or what I need to do to make it go faster. All help is appreciated. Smko47 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smko47 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smko47 As noted in the submission notice, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,620 pending submissions waiting for review." Reviews are conducted by volunteers who do what they can when they can, and in no particular order, so you will need to be patient; you can't "make it go faster".
Just with a quick glance, I'm not certain it will be accepted, as it reads like a resume. I see that you declared a COI, what is the nature of your COI? 331dot (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response. I will revise the content. The COI was just a disclosure that I know the person for whom I am doing the page about. I worked with him 2004-2008 but not getting paid to do the page. I personally don't consider it a conflict but someone from your side asked if I knew him and put the COI on the page. This is all new to me as it's my first and I'm learning as I go. I do want you to know that you are appreciated for being so helpful. With gratitude, Smko47 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:46, 12 October 2020 review of draft by DocFreeman24


Hi all,

I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia (been editing for a few months now) and would love some feedback on this draft article in order to better understand why it was rejected. From the comment, it looks like there was some concern about a lack of reliable sources and I'd like to know more about that concern. In particular, what about the articles that were linked made them unreliable? I am happy to locate addition references that I believe make this board game sufficiently notable but would appreciate some guidance so that further submissions are better! Thanks!

DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DocFreeman24 The draft does little more than tell of the existence of the game. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. You offer two external links but it's not clear that they are intended as references; see WP:CITE for information on properly citing references. Those links are just websites offering the game for sale, this does not establish notability. Mentions of niche industry awards rarely do as well. News coverage of the game, published academic papers about the game, independent unsolicited reviews of the game, are the sorts of things that establish notability. If those don't exist, the game would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback! Let me take a crack at beefing it up further (there are definitely media articles referencing this game) and I'll resubmit. Cheers! DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've spent several hours working on this today in the hopes of addressing your comments and the others that were left. I would welcome further feedback! Thanks! DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:59, 12 October 2020 review of submission by Raddiecat2


Raddiecat2 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Raddiecat2: this submission lacks independent sources and as such fails to show how this subject meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable person. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

00:43:01, 13 October 2020 review of submission by 122.177.102.44


Sir, please check any of the companies / links / directly or on Google Digicodes (www.digicodes.in) iVoucher (www.ivoucher.in) Indiacompute (Www.indiacompute.com) Myopencademy (www.myopenacademy.com) Prepaidvirtual (Www.prepaidvirtual.com) Indiweb Holdings (www.indiwebholdings.com)

Digicodes is India's largest digital gaming and e-goods store for example. The company has 3000+ customer reviews and you can find the same on Google also. To be honest it deserves its own Wikipedia page. The same goes for some of the other brands.

Google itself is showing us in the same league as Steam, Gamestop, and other game stores in the 'People also search for' category.

So this page is for the parent organization which is even bigger and incorporates the other brands too.

Please assess basis these facts provided.

122.177.102.44 (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article X's status, existence, or absence is irrelevant to that of Article Y. If anything, you're helping to show the G11 was justified. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 06:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:04:17, 13 October 2020 review of submission by GianoM

Hello, what kind of cleanup does this draft need?

GianoM (talk) 09:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:41:31, 13 October 2020 review of submission by 2001:8F8:1B21:AECE:2061:D510:B7B5:419


2001:8F8:1B21:AECE:2061:D510:B7B5:419 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:36:10, 13 October 2020 review of draft by Mbounthavong


I want to request a review of the article to determine if it meeting eligibility criteria.

I have included independent references to support statements made about the subject of the article. Of note, I want to highlight the FDA's use of the subject's guidelines to clear develop and use patient report outcome instruments for evaluations.

Thanks for your time and please let me know if there's more that I can do.

Mbounthavong (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbounthavong (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:11:35, 13 October 2020 review of submission by Djb2183


I believe the subject is indeed notable, and I do not believe anything in the article is promotional. It is just basic facts with nothing more. I removed a couple sources and added a couple more that I think are more in line with what the editor is looking for. Thank you.

Djb2183 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected as not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it won't be re-considered. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:54:43, 13 October 2020 review of submission by JPSilvaggio


Greetings, 

 Was confused by the reviewers comments that I need 'reliable sources',  am I suppose to link to the independant news articles relating to me.  If so, should I also delete the references I made within the article to the scanned documents proving what I am saying?  Google and Bing's 'Knowledge Panel' lists me as a politican should I include them sources as well?  Please advise.

-John Silvaggio JPSilvaggio (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, We don't care about whatever you have to say about yourself. Second, you need to cite those independent news sources, and you need a news source for EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CLAIM the article makes. The Knowledge Graph and its imitators are never a useful source (since most of the time they pull from Wikipedia). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 23:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 14

01:08:28, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Jack beanstalk


I am confused about providing sources that meet eligibility as the sources quotes are from reputable news sources however I only have hard copies as the sources in question do not have online versions due to the time periods. How many reputable sources are needed and how do mange if the reputable sources are pre-internet. This is a small entry for a significant australian poly-artist whose works are displayed in a number of galleries as well as in the main street of a large Australian town.

Thank you


Jack beanstalk (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack beanstalk, I have left what I hope is a useful comment on your draft, and tidied it a little. I have not made a review, simply answered your query there. Fiddle Faddle 07:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:56:11, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Live netram

Seriously this is the article about a cricketer name arun khator but I can't find the correct reference for article please move it to article space. Live netram (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give me advice how my article published what mistake I am doing Live netram (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Live netram If you have further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. The reviewers have informed you of the reason for the rejection; do you have questions about those reasons? 331dot (talk) 07:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:43, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Aniketkoli02


Aniketkoli02 (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We don't care about what you have to say about yourself. (2) We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. You need to provide a strong secondary source for every claim the article makes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 06:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:25, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka


Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi VRaj Mandapaka You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:53:48, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Dartish


I would like to learn more about citing my own work. I tried 3 times by now but every time my page did not submit. the problem was about the citation that I made. I can't add more citations about my work as I added 2 reliable sources in my article. also, I am the one who owns the information that is taking place in my article so it cant be unreliable. I don't know why you don't accept my work.

Thank you.


Dartish (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dartish: Short answer: You must demonstrate that the video game is notable. See our General Notability Guideline. The mere existence of a subject doesn't mean that it is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Notabililty also can't be demonstrated through primary sources such as the site the video game is hosted on. Reliable, independent, mainstream secondary sources need to write about the game. That's it in a nutshell, but still read the WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:19:56, 14 October 2020 review of draft by 2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B


Hello, you could help me by giving me a procedure to follow.

I have two quality secondary sources; the vast majority of paragraphs are based on these two sources. I thought that quoting them as a reference once each was sufficient. Here are my two questions

1, do you think that Mrs Andersen with her career, her recordings ... deserves to have a page in Wikipedia? And that therefore the refusal is only due to my inexperience... More than 70 cd's and 33 lps are listed in Worldcat for Ms. Andersen.

2, should I fill in one or both of my two sources in each paragraph for the article to be accepted?

Yours sincerely

thank you in advance for your help

Guy

2A02:A03F:6262:9F00:811B:3E72:589:451B (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you made needs a direct inline citation supporting the statement. See also WP:SELFPUB which limits self-published sources. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:12, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Vasudharini


Vasudharini (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Has the references been referred for not ability? Anyway if Wikipedia feels otherwise, can't help it. Google eitherways shows a lot of results for the author and the same keeps popping up. So thanks for declining without going through the other language resources.

13:40:57, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Go-Tsumaroki


I need help just finishing this article up. There are not a lot of good sources for reviews, or just in general. I've been stuck on this article for the past month trying to figure out all this stuff. Talk ↔️ Contribs 13:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:57:18, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Ravimaurya.alld


Ravimaurya.alld (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravimaurya.alld: No sources? What you realy going to need is your WP:THREE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:36:04, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Matthewobrien


Matt (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started working on a Wikipedia submission early in the summer of 2020. It is regarding Draft:James H. Higdon Sr. , who was an early settler in El Paso, Texas. He built one of the first homes in the Sunset District of El Paso. The idea of my submission came from a Wiki article on Sunset Heights, as many other contemporary settlers were mentioned, but not him.

I completed the article and submitted it in July. A reviewer replied, asking me to make some changes, all of which seemed fine to me in order to make the article more robust.

I made the changes and re-submitted on August 4, 2020. On August 5, a new reviewer (DGG) came in to the picture, with new issues not previously mentioned. Basically, he wanted the "tone" of the submission changed to a more abstract, "encyclopedia-like" one. I saw his point.

I then made quite a few edits and resubmitted. I've now waited about 2 1/2 months and find my submission still awaiting review. I think? Could you please advise me of the status? Thanks

- Matt O'Brien

@Matthewobrien: You never resubmitted it, which is why no one looked at it. Click the resubmit button at the top of your draft and it will be placed at the back of the queue. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthewobrien: Apologies, I didn't look close enough. It was submitted and was declined today. See your talk page for more detail. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:45:58, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Cocoablini


I am not sure why my submission is rejected. I have cited a Book and I have a link to proof than John Ming Yee Lee is an FAIA architect (AIA newsletter) There are links back to Edward Larrabee Barnes, partner as well.

Cocoablini (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You're writing an encyclopaedia article, not PR trash. (2) We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes MUST be cited to a strong secondary source that corroborates it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:55, 14 October 2020 review of draft by Ltwp


Ltwp (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This article got rejected due to not having "reliable sources," despite the majority of our references being peer-reviewed scientific journals. I am curious if it is mainly a focus on citing secondary, rather than primary sources? Just looking for a bit more information here on the nature of the reasoning.

@Ltwp: who is "our"? Wikipedia accounts are single-person-only. As for the draft, IMO journals are often regarded as primary sources, the use of which is limited. Howewer, the draft seems to also have a paraphrase problem. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:54:13, 14 October 2020 review of submission by Sahnilbigfan


Sahnilbigfan (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


October 15

01:06:05, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Naeem95

I am requesting a review because this player is a professional soccer player and have played for 3 professional teams in the USA and 1 pro club in Germany. He has sufficient articles that was provided and connections to professional clubs as seen on their wiki page. Thank You ! Naeem95 (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any of those professional teams were in a top-level national league (i.e. MLS or Bundesliga) or on this list, WP:NFOOTY is not satisfied. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC) (edited 06:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

01:44:37, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Sahnilbigfan

Please I want you to review this Draft again because someone else interrupted this draft. Please review it again as Sahnil is a social media influener as well as an India tv actor. Hoping the best from you! Thank you for understanding!

Sahnilbigfan (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:02:57, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Trndsettr4fire


I requested a page Trndsettr4fire (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Trndsettr4fire (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trndsettr4fire: Wikipedia is a volunteer project. People have to endeavor to build articles, not just request them. The draft linked above lacks most details, so it's not particularly useful. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:43:11, 15 October 2020 review of submission by FamdomFom76


FamdomFom76 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC) 05:43:11, 15 October 2020 review of submission by FamdomFom76 FamdomFom76 (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Hi How can I Create a Article That Meets The Wikipedia Community Standards? == 05:43:11, 15 October 2020 review of draft by FamdomFom76 ==,[reply]

@FamdomFom76: You are goign to need several reliable (no user-generated content) independent(no press releases or interviews) sources with significant coverage(not yust passing mentions) to show that the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:38, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Jener13


Hello, can you pleaes review the new page "Jos. Kraus & Co." At the moment only exist in german language, I try to create an english page. Thank you very much for your help. jener13

Jener13 (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:48:12, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Katdot89

Hi. The previous post was created by another user. I am a totally independent reviewer interested in writing about Gaming companies in Malta. I have edited the existing draft to a totally unbiased view of the company. The comment by the first Wikipedia reviewer, was based on the first submitted draft by the other user. I'd appreciate if I can better understand what falls under 'contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia'. Thanks Katdot89 (talk) 07:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katdot89 It is not easy to find a draft unless you know where specifically to find it, and you have not edited about any other topics. How did you come to be interested in this topic if you are "totally independent"?
The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It just tells about the organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is in depth and goes beyond brief mentions, name drops, announcements of routine business, staff interviews, and other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:34:39, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Aie555


I've take the time to go through this draft article and made several improvements: I've removed trivial sources, removed unsourced statements, and added new authoritative sources that were not available at the time of the last review. Some of the sources from outlets that are authoritative in the language technology industry or in the Czech Republic. On the suggestion of the last reviewer, I am submitting this for an additional review.

For the sake of full disclosure, I do have a potential conflict of interests: I work in the language technology sector and have had a professional relationship with Memsource.

Aie555 (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Please review the comments given in the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 331dot, based on your advice from my last submission I reached out to CaptainEek who reviewed and rejected the draft previously, and he suggested that I submit it for review again. Is this not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aie555 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the reviewer that rejected the draft believes you should resubmit it, then I would ask them to reverse their rejection. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:48, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Mohd Hamdaan Ansari


Mohd Hamdaan Ansari (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohd Hamdaan Ansari: This draaft currently lacks reliable independent sources with significant coverage and as such currently fails WP:NPERSON. Apart from that, its also written in a promotional manner. Thats the exact reason why we strongely discourage autobiographys. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:53:50, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Rubiesar


Rubiesar (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Please I need to tag reviewers to my contribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam[reply]

18:01:54, 15 October 2020 review of draft by 2601:243:80:E3B0:8CB3:1DDF:6C53:A4BD


Having trouble getting the article approved because there was a second Landline film that was already given the subject heading in 2017. This is a different Landline film with different credentials and articles related. I'd love to know how we can get this one approved after the previous editor denied us for having the same subject as another film. Thank you so much.

2601:243:80:E3B0:8CB3:1DDF:6C53:A4BD (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the author of the article, ChicagoFilmmaker83, please remember to sign in when editing Wikipedia. Since it is a different film from Landline (film), I recommend simply resubmitting the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:53, 15 October 2020 review of draft by Rubiesar


Rubiesar (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly Singer-songwriters to my contribution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BJ_Sam

@Rubiesar: It is unclear what you are asking. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not social media and does not do tags. Drafts do not get categories appended to them as a general rule. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:13, 15 October 2020 review of submission by 2A02:C7D:14D2:3C00:B91C:1791:C4B8:7BFC


2A02:C7D:14D2:3C00:B91C:1791:C4B8:7BFC (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected drafts will not be considered further. Repeatedly submitting a draft without making any substantial changes to it is a waste of the submitter's time and ours. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:00:57, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Acidskater

I would like to request a review of draft:Israel Weinstein as I believe it was incorrectly denied. While there was some problematic wording which I have since cleaned up, I believe that the admin's ruling is incorrect. In asking the admin to expand on their reasoning so that I could assist the creator in editing the draft to get it published I was given nothing of substance and instead told that the admin suspected the creator of violating WP:COI "due to the article creator's contribution", which is even more vague and feels like the admin is leaning into not assuming good faith. I would be interested to hear from others, especially if anyone agrees with the original admin and can point out areas they believe are problematic. Questions to the admin who denied the draft and their responses can be found here. Acidskater (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Acidskater (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:26, 15 October 2020 review of submission by Picvdo


Picvdo (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was blatant promotion which is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

06:32:55, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Acanga Luke


Acanga Luke (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Hello, would like to find out why my article has been declined?[reply]

@Acanga Luke: does the big pink box at User:Acanga Luke/sandbox/The Modern Academic Library not help you? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:34, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Maiti Meghna

The article provided by me is genuine and at present, this movement is going on in West Bengal, India. Please, I'm requesting the Wiki authority to accept my article. Maiti Meghna (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:56:59, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Ron.challinor


My submission has been moved to a draft because I have deprectaed and unreliable sources. How do I overcome these. Also, in one case I have a citation needed that I am unable to supply.

Ron.challinor (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ron.challinor. Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. If you can't cite a reliable, published source for a statement, then that material should not be in the encyclopedia. If a statement cites an unreliable source, such as a self-published blog or The Daily Mail, then the content must be removed unless you can find a reliable source to replace the unreliable one. A local library or historical society might be able to suggest sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:21:15, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Glen Hodgson


I have written a page on Budapest Process which is being investigated for copyright issues. I have contacted the Budapest Process website administrators and they are happy for the material to be used. They will also send across an e-mail confirming this.

Glen Hodgson (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is no longer in draft space, but to be clear: Generally any text provided by the subject themselves is not suitable for Wikipedia, whether because it's not neutral or not reflected in credible secondary sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:05:05, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Kyrawalenga


I'm wondering why it "reads like an advertisement" when they are simply the facts of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyrawalenga (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it reads like an investment brochure. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 14:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Thatoilguy

Did I correctly add citations and sources for AFC? I found many sources for my first AFC - Even linked to official london stock exchange site for citation.

Thatoilguy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:04, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Francis Bea


I just reviewed the feedback and wanted to see if I could get a clarification on the reason for the article's rejection. For those familiar with the AR/MR industry, Nreal is considered to be on par with Magic Leap and Hololens and in fact typically mentioned in the same sentence as the company is the industry as the only one to have launched consumer mixed reality glasses on the market - following Magic Leap's pivot. Not to mention the founder is from Magic Leap. But on the mention regarding the criteria of notability Magic Leap had gone out of its way to sue the company, which resulted in independent, albeit unfavorable coverage about Nreal.[1]

Francis Bea (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:38:06, 16 October 2020 review of draft by Nthanhou


I have authored an article on Ray Tauser that required additional references which have been supplied. I "published" this but no response, yet. Here is a link to the DRAFT article: Draft:Ray_Tauser

Would you please help me get this approved or what is needed for publication? I have just finished a documentary about Ray Tauser and having a Wiki page will be visited as a result.

Thank you, Ned Thanhouser (nthanhou)

Nthanhou (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:31, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Willairwin


Greetings! I submitted this bio on September 24, having complied -- or attempted to comply -- with the proper in-line referencing format. I was almost immediately referred to how to properly format. I believe I have done so, so I re-submitted the bio yesterday. Could please tell me the status, and if it is still not properly formatted, could you please tell me what I need to do to correct it.

Thank you very much.

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC) Will Irwin[reply]

Willairwin (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read WP:REFB as advised and you have not re-submitted it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:20, 16 October 2020 review of submission by Pilotmichael

Trying to get this article published and there are questions of reliable independent sources. Pilotmichael (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18684164/magic-leap-nreal-light-chi-xu-lawsuit-ar-glasses-design-ripoff
  2. ^ https://www.wired.com/story/apple-ar-glasses/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=983859674"