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 Sehran hassan (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 7 December 2020 (→swicth: new section). 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


December 1

04:16:43, 1 December 2020 review of submission by Swickouski

Hi. I am the author of an article which was submitted and recently declined. The reviewer noted that the article lacked proper citation and read lke an advertisement, However, I made a point of using internationally recognized third-party sources AND including detail about significant charges of insider trading. What do I need to do before resibmitting? Swickouski (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swickouski, I've replied to your message on my talk page, and on Hegvald's talk page too. It should answer your question. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:52:51, 1 December 2020 review of draft by Adityapawar1408


Please tell me where you fill that our content looks like a marketing. Kinldy help me to publish this draft.

Adityapawar1408 (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:44, 1 December 2020 review of draft by AysarGha


It isn't clear to me what is not cited correctly. I felt the message left by Andrew was rather vague.

AysarGha (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:01:50, 1 December 2020 review of submission by Nikhilesh barua9


Nikhilesh barua9 (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhilesh barua9 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:14, 1 December 2020 review of draft by Sienawards


Gina Williams (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I submitted corrections to this page and haven't heard back for some time. I just want to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. I also asked for a revision to the name of the page, which should be: "Drone Photo Awards"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Drone_Awards

Thank you! --Gina Williams

16:42:17, 1 December 2020 review of submission by 2409:4071:E18:9CC5:941F:A521:8CE3:FBC3

Dear Sir/Mam Please consider a relook into this article for publication consideration. Thank you in advance 2409:4071:E18:9CC5:941F:A521:8CE3:FBC3 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a subject to have an article, you must demonstrate that the subject meets at least our General Notability Guideline, which says that Baikady would have to receive significant coverage (in-depth coverage, not passing mentions) from reliable secondary sources (no blogs, no random websites, but mainstream sources) that are independent of the subject. So where are the references that show that the media, (newspapers, magazines, books from major publishers, etc) are writing about Baikady and his work in depth? Because if the answer is "I can't find any", then the subject is likely not going to meet our notability standards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:43:53, 1 December 2020 review of draft by SPP2012


I have created my first AfC submission and clicked the box to "Submit the draft for review!" When I return to the draft page, it continues to read, "Draft article not currently submitted for review. This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review."

Is there anything else or additional I need to do to ensure my AfC submission is in queue for review?

SPP2012 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPP2012: Did you press the Publish Changes button that appears at the very bottom of the next page you see after you click the "Submit the draft for review" button? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:22, 1 December 2020 review of submission by KennyParis


Hello, I believe my draft about the musicians/artists Picard Brothers is now ready to be approved but I still don't have any news and it's been 2 most since my last edit. I would really like to know if it's going to be declined again or if it can be approved please. I have searched and found more reliable sources and I have taken other examples of producers who are less known than Picard Brothers and saw the sources they used and I have searched in the same places. I am following the rules of Wikipedia and I truly believe that they deserve their page to be approved please. They have won a Grammy and they have produced the latest Beyoncé single, the last Mark Ronson album, and many songs for Diplo and Major Lazer. There are many websites mentioning their names, they participated in many of the biggest songs of the last decade.

KennyParis (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:17, 1 December 2020 review of submission by Hardik kachhawaha


Hardik kachhawaha (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was correctly rejected outright, nothing to suggest that you are notable enough for an article I'm afraid. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:36:56, 1 December 2020 review of draft by Zifnab25


I am currently revising Sima Ladjevardian's Wiki entry to expand its scope and establish her as a local political figure with significant press coverage. Prior to running for Congress, her philanthropic work and political activism has had a sizable impact on the Houston Area. And her close relationship with the Beto Senate and Presidential campaigns drove his success as a high profile fund raiser. The assorted links and notes should bare out both.

That said, I know standards for an article can be a bit subjective. So I'd like to know if the current updates are in line with Wiki standards for notability before I submit these article updates another time.

Zifnab25 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the article makes MUST be cited to a strong secondary source or removed outright. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 21:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

00:54:32, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Flewisss

Hello Wikipedia community,

I was hoping someone could provide me with more specific feedback regarding my draft. I am a first time editor trying to put together a page about Bill Russell, an illustrator in the San Francisco Bay Area. My submission was rejected because the article "read too much like an advertisement." I felt I included numerous non-biased sources and my tone was neutral (perhaps I am wrong, feel free to disagree here), so I am guessing what got flagged was the external links section listing some of Russell's personal websites. I was trying to be thorough since I saw similar sections on other illustrator's pages, but in reading about what Wiki considers spam, the help pages listed external links as a big no-no. I wanted to know if that section was indeed the issue, or does the whole article need restructuring? Thank you, I am enjoying learning about the community here!

Flewisss (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Flewisss[reply]

Flewisss (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:39:32, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Wykax

   11:39:32, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Wykax

Wykax (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wykax You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, as it is nowhere close to being suitable as a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:51, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Akarnikos

Please review this article, Haris Stampoulids is playing profession soccer now and I've updated all reference. He is also in spanish wiki: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charalampos_Stamboulidis - Charalampos Stamboulidis, better known as Haris Stamboulidis, represented here as his Greek name.

I'm hoping you can now approve this article. Akarnikos (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akarnikos If this player has now appeared in a game in a fully professional league, you should appeal to the reviewer who rejected your draft. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:24:43, 2 December 2020 review of submission by 2401:4900:4BB6:EB61:2DC2:692C:2A5C:373C


it was mentioned that this draft is blatant book promotion. However this, not a blatant book promotion, rather this is an article about an academic, researcher subject with international contribution and reputation. requesting you to have relook as many inline citation and external links are now provided in the draft article 2401:4900:4BB6:EB61:2DC2:692C:2A5C:373C (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk)`

12:39:26, 2 December 2020 review of submission by 103.61.196.199


103.61.196.199 (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced to independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:36, 2 December 2020 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:ED6A:E0EC:D1FD:8889


Hi. This page seems to lack that yellow notice that it is being reviewed. Can someone help? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:ED6A:E0EC:D1FD:8889 (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the appropriate information to allow you to submit your draft. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks--184.153.21.19 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:09:10, 2 December 2020 review of draft by Sabulhab


Hi, I have resubmitted the article with 10 more references/external link, as suggested by the draft reviewer. I can add more if needed. Also, I am aware that the article involves myself, but reading over the help pages, they said it is ok to write autobiography article since it will be open for future corrections from other editors.

I would like to know if all is ok now. Thanks.

Sabulhab (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabulhab: I'm not sure what help pages you read, but WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY says fairly unambiguously, Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is an example of conflict of interest editing and is strongly discouraged. Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at one of our quality Featured Articles, like Priyanka Chopra, you'll notice that in the body of the article, there are inline citations that support various claims and facts stated in the article. And if you scroll down, all of those various inline citations are collected at the bottom of the page. The draft article about you would need these as well. Which reference says when you were born? Which reference says where you went to school? Which reference talks about the creation of the Mutamathil Type Style? Which reference indicates how many original Arabic and bilingual font families you created? All of that would have to be supported inline, and it's almost certain that the article could be declined quickly for a lack of adequate inline referencing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I did read the Wikipedia policy on autobiographies. It says autobiography articles are strongly discouraged, as you have wrote. Clearly this does not say forbidden. Therefore I went ahead and wrote one, with good faith to open it to editors input. The other option is to use paid editors! I do not like to support that trend in Wikipedia.
Finally, the external links I provided verify my education and coverage.
As for your question which help Wikipedia pages I am referencing regarding the Notability criteria, I am referring to "Wikipedia:Notability (people)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)
Sabulhab (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sabulhab It is true that autobiographical articles are not absolutely forbidden. But it is a rare thing for someone to actually succeed in writing one. I have never seen anyone succeed at it in my eight and a half years here. But Wikipedia is not interested in what people want to say about themselves, and is not a place for people to merely tell the world about themselves and their accomplishments. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
In order for you to succeed at that, you would in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself, and everything you have accomplished in your life, and only write based on the content of independent sources with significant coverage(not press releases, brief mentions, or other primary sources). Most people cannot do that about themselves, even though it is technically possible. If you truly feel that you are one of the rare people who can do that, you are free to extensively rewrite your draft. 331dot (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I don't mean to argue but if you have never seen anyone succeed at it in your eight and a half years this does not make it right. How about being the first? I am clearly qualified via the Academics Criteria. This is not an auto bio. Just info page.
BTW: I noticed you ignored commenting on which Wikipedia help pages I am reading regarding the Academics Notability criteria, even though you asked me. Here is is my answer again if you want to comment:
I am referring to "Wikipedia:Notability (people)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabulhab (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sabulhab It is an autobiography because you are writing it about yourself. As I said, if you truly think that you are one of the very few people who can write in the the manner I stated above and succeed at it, you may proceed, but your draft will need to radically change from its current state. Wikipedia articles are not mere "info pages" that merely provide information, they summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am sorry, you still think my bio is not for a notable person. I can point to many many others who are not even close to notability on Wikipedia. Notability depends on the field you are in. As academics, as you will read in your own help pages below, are notable by definition if they produced heavy research work and publications in their fields. I have plenty and supplied them. At this point, I am confused and don't know how to handle this. As I said, I looked into your help pages and clearly see that I fulfill you notability criteria, basic and additional. Please see below with my comments under each.

Basic criteria "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject."

I have supplied 3 articles from major widely circulating newspapers. I forgot about other coverage over the years and I am too old to hunt for them now.

Additional criteria

Academics

"Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources."

I am a known researcher and scholar working in a major university who produced very original publications and research, 7 books and plenty of articles. I got lot of grants. Your help page says "academics" are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. I belong to the "academics" criteria. I have even supplied 3 "secondary sources" without needing them according to your help page. On CUNY (the City University of New York) Academics work, I just reached more than 16,500 downloads from around the world of my research/publication, making me rank in the top 10%.

Creative professionals

  • "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

I am widely notable by peers because of my unique (but controversial to many) non-traditional Arabic font design style. I have designed 45 original font families over the past two decades. I am among the most active Arabic font designers in general. For sure, I am the most active non-traditional Arabic font designer in the world. Many articles and theses which have referenced my work. I am too old to go and hunt for them.

  • "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique."

The New York Times says I introduced a significant new concept, or technique. Many other sources said that too. Why do I need to list more than three secondary sources, when I clearly fulfilled the notability criteria based only on the "Academics" additional criteria that I listed above.

Please help and reconsider.

Sabulhab (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabulhab Please make follow up comments in this existing section, do not create additional sections. You've been told how you can proceed if you insist on pursuing this. You would be better off to allow independent editors to take note of you and write about you. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:12, 2 December 2020 review of draft by ArekSmith


ArekSmith (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) ArekSmith (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Can you please help me with creating the Lowell Police Department (Indiana) article[reply]

@ArekSmith: the first thing you want to do is looks for reliable independent sources. Then you want to expand the draft with the information from them. Make sure that you use your own words. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:24, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Wordforester


I'm having a hard time understanding why this article was Declined. The stated reason was that "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia." However, it was patterned after other articles written about Psychologists and reads in a similar style, like the one linked below. Can some point out specifically what part(s) read like an advertising? Some help to better understand this would be very appreciated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_E._Kazdin

Wordforester (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:24, 2 December 2020 review of submission by Carlden10

Hi can you please give me a clear explanation of why the article was rejected? I don't see any reasoning on the article submission page. Thank you. Carlden10 (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlden10 You were given a reason, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Please read Your first article and the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read and I saw that, but I'm completely unclear how it's not notable. That isn't specific to me. I sited all the sources that mention the subject (which was the argument I was told months ago), I removed all "interview-type" publications (which was the second issue), and I added publications like Elle and Billboard (which was the third issue and those are certainly notable sources). Otherwise, it sounds like I'm being told that music artists/fashion designers are not notable. Please advise and thank you for your time. Carlden10 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlden10 Musicians have their own notability criteria. Which of them do you assert this singer meets? A fashion designer would probably fall under the creative professional criteria. The sources seemed to be routine announcements and not significant coverage.
Do you have a connection with this person? 331dot (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:40, 2 December 2020 review of submission by GentlemenistZero


I'm literally trying to add a wikipedia page for myself... to document my achievements pursuits, for public relations, etc... why do you people keep declining my post. This post is 100% legitimate. GentlemenistZero (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I believed that someone would seriously call themselves stupid in their autobiography, Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion, and we don't care about people who aspire, we care about people who have achieved. WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GentlemenistZero Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your public relations or in otherwise aiding your career. There are alternative forums where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:57:21, 2 December 2020 review of submission by 97.115.156.57

This page was moved to draft with the explanation "Quarantine likely covert advertising". I was curious so I was reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines around this, but I can't seem to find anything to back it up. I reviewed WP:DRAFT but I don't see anything about moving a page to Draft for "quarantine" or for issues related to the tone of the article. The guidelines state "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and if it is not notable list at AfD." but this was clearly not followed on this page. Can someone please share the guidelines for moving a page to draft in this situation? I think there are many articles that need to be moved to draft for advertising but I'm not 100% sure if this is allowed. 97.115.156.57 (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator was blocked indefinitely for advertising, which is a violation of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. Also, someone who is editing for pay, but who has not disclosed that, would be violating WP:PAID.So, moving the article, which has the stench of promotion wafting from it, to draft space, would be to metaphorically quarantine it. I'm sure you can understand that we wouldn't want anyone getting paid for something they were doing in violation of our community policies. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's somewhat common practice to move articles that would be a slam-dunk AfD deletion to draft space so that they can be worked on, as an alternative to the AfD debate and deletion. It gives the author (or anyone else interested in editing the page) more time to work on the article and get more used to Wikipedia policies, and it's less likely to torque off a contributor than a deletion debate will. Of course, this generally only happens with articles that do have some potential, but are either too promotional, mercenary, or too wanting source-wise to be fit for article space.
Moving a page to draft from article space also ensures the not-ready article doesn't get indexed on search engines, limiting any potential fallout from having an article that isn't up to par being near the top of search results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wheres the policy for this commn practice? Draft:Unify Square this article shouldnt be moved to draft it is not new see WP:ATD-I for nwly created and incubaiton not intended to be a backdoor to deletion. WP:ADMASK says nothng about draft just to add tag advert template and rewrite to nuetral. this has no sales-oriented languAge or external links to commrcial website as WP:ADMASK. please share lnk to community policy or move page to live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.53.135 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:13, 2 December 2020 review of draft by Hmichelle1


I do not know how to submit my draft for review. Hmichelle1 (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmichelle1: Did you try clicking the giant blue button that says "Submit the draft for review", and then the one at the bottom of the next page that says Publish changes? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:51:42, 2 December 2020 review of draft by 217.155.35.61


I am the subject of this entry. I find it surprising that I am deemed not worthy of an article but, given that's the concensus, I would like this entry to be deleted from Wikipedia. It is not fair to make money from having my name/draft article on the site. PLEASE DELETE. I am a living person who does not wish a draft version of some article about myself to be published online.

217.155.35.61 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not "make money" based on the existence of any one article or draft. But as the creator, you can request its deletion, which I will carry out. Please note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, and that there are notability criteria to merit an article(as reviewers told you). 331dot (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't want a draft article about you to be published, why on earth did you create one? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

06:17:11, 3 December 2020 review of draft by Iamlillyk


Hello, I am trying to publish an article for the Wiki page titled, Draft:Montana Jacobowitz, but I keep getting a decline because of the references pages, is it possible if someone could correct this for me so that it could pass guidelines or help assist me as best as possible? Thank you.


Iamlillyk (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:21:47, 3 December 2020 review of draft by Shish Mohammad Jakaria


Shish Mohammad Jakaria (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English version

So I am asking for an English version of Coup de Jarnac to be created so that people that know the word, but don't understand French can read it. Is there anyone that can do this?Volcannon (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:01, 3 December 2020 review of submission by Ammy666


Ammy666 (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:35:14, 3 December 2020 review of submission by AJMonWiki

The content of my submission does not meet the minimum standards for inline citations. Please could you tell me if this means there are not enough citations (i.e. not enough of the content has verifiable references), or that the citations it does include have not been formatted correctly. If the former, should I reduce the article length so that only verifiable content is included? Thank you for your help.

AJMonWiki (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The former, and yes, if you can't find any usable sources for them. We require every single claim to either be sourced to a strong secondary source or outright removed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:55:50, 3 December 2020 review of submission by AliOlaide

What can I do to make my page go through? AliOlaide (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to demonstrate notability, you will need to provide multiple references to in-depth articles written about you in unrelated, independent journals, magazines, books or online. Any article should be based on them alone, we have no interest in what you want to say about yourself. Theroadislong (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:23:11, 3 December 2020 review of submission by Tiguras


In the original submission, none of the work was properly referenced, so I have added links to the various projects and shows. Thank you.

Tiguras (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A link isn't a reference. See Help:Referencing for beginners for how to actually create references. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:32:40, 3 December 2020 review of draft by IMuelller



Dear Wikipedia people, we would like to know whether we can describe a phenomenon on wikipedia with the set of sources available below, or whether we can't because the phenomenon has not gained enough attention by other sources yet.

We wrote an article on a phenomenon in the international facilitation and do-it-yourself-projects scene that we deem interesting enough to be on wikipedia, without wanting to promote anything. There is a subset of facilitators organising around the term „Art of hosting“, that, based on specific assumptions, organise processes in specific ways. They organise around that theme for at least the last 20 years now (and have developed interesting principles for adressing social challenges as come with climate change or poverty or…)

When we wrote the article, some people were veery concerned to only use science quotes in order to get accepted. Now, we got the review that we should not quote original research.

(„This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.")

I can see the point about the tone and we're about to change this.

The thing about sources is: that there aren't so many. - there is the documents by the community itself (abundant grey literature, websites) - some books by individuals from that community - webpages by individuals - a bunch of scientific articles

… but are all not „secondary, reliable sources“, are they? So is the phenomenon just too small to be talked about in wikipedia, if there is no such secondary literature by non-practitioners yet? How should we handle that?

For full disclosure: some people in our author collective use the approach themselves, but having other jobs none of us earns their living with that. So our intention is not to advertise, but to make something interesting and helpful more transparent to the world. We assumed that this should be possible.

Best Imu IMuelller (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the read of it, the sourcing isn't so much the issue as the tone - aside from the concerns it was essaylike, the reviewer also expressed a concern that it mutated into promoting an associated website that seems to have usurped the generic phrase. I tend to agree with him - the article reads like an advertising brochure, and is practically crammed with buzzwords. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 13:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:40, 3 December 2020 review of submission by Francisjk2020

Hi, Please could you take a look at the draft. No one seems to be reviewing it. I have incorporated all compliance changes as suggested by Wiki administrators. Thank you for your consideration. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)) Francisjk2020 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Francisjk2020: The article was declined in October because the reviewer didn't feel that you had done enough to establish that the company met our notability guidelines. See WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Since then,[1][2] you haven't done much to address this issue beyond adding a single reference, deleting evidence that the draft had previously been declined, and that there had been a community discussion about the subject not being notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:49:07, 3 December 2020 review of submission by Satish Punewale(SP)


Satish Punewale(SP) (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Satish Punewale(SP): You didn't ask a question, and you [3] blanked the article draft. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:19:52, 3 December 2020 review of submission by CanAge2020

Why was my CanAge page rejected? We are a new nonprofit. Can I still edit the page as I wasn't finished? CanAge2020 (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CanAge2020: Wikipedia does not allow advertising or "spreading the word" about a brand. Also, Wikipedia is not here to help your noble cause. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:07, 3 December 2020 review of draft by 97.83.218.39


An avid fan of Dead Meat like I am needs to have James on this wiki along with the other popular youtubers.

97.83.218.39 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:46:52, 3 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kiraly17


Hello and thank you. This regards the draft for "Gabriel T Rozman". I have several questions as follows: (1) when editing a draft, how do I save my work if I am not yet ready to publsih? I have just lost 2 hours work (but fortunately printed beforehand so all is not lost). How do you save a draft, then go back later and continue working on it before finally publishing ? (2) how do I tag for review my draft submission ? I pressed the "tag" button, but an AFC template box appeared with text already in the multiple and number white text boxes ? (3) I would like to get input on my draft to improve its chances of being accepted. I understand the comments made at the last rejection and I am working to build out more, but would still like an experienced user to make suggestions. (4) finally, I need help with inserting a photo. I have read the help text and have tried to google the info, but when I insert the photo according to the instructions as I understand them, the photo is inserted in the middle of a random paragraph of the draft!

many many thanks and look forward to hearing back soon.Kiraly17 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Kiraly17 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiraly17: Your work is saved when you click "Publish changes". There is no requirement that you submit a final draft every time you click this button, so feel free to use it as often as you need. A greater item of importance, however, is that you really need to read our General Notability Guidelines and be sure that you are demonstrating that the subject has received "significant coverage (in-depth coverage, not passing mentions) by reliable sources (no blogs, no random websites. Major mainstream sources. See WP:RS) that are independent (no interviews, not the subject's website, not an article written by his spouse, etc.) of the subject". So far I don't get the sense that subject is notable. He sounds like a regular person who has had regular jobs. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this article currently feels a bit too LinkedIn. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 4

03:24:52, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Xupnext


Xupnext (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xupnext: Your help request is blank. Did you have a question? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:41:16, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Azi Rafati


Azi Rafati (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Azi Rafati: Your help request is blank. Did you have a question? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Azi Rafati: this submission is undersourced. Imdb.com is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim you want to make in an article about a living person needs to be directly backed up by an inline ctaion to a reliable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:18, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Rom0011


I am working on DRAFT: Gilles J Guillemin. My article was rejected because it did "not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article." and that I should "make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject". I have made some edits and I believe I have resolved the problem, but I would greatly appreciate if someone else took a look over it to let me know if I have misunderstood or still need to change things. This is my first article so I am still getting used to and learning the ways things are done. Many thanks. Rom0011 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rom0011 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rom0011, I've helped with a bit of copyediting on the draft, and I see another editor has as well. You've listed a significant number of non-notable achievements in there, and that detracts from the strength and credibility of the submission. That can sometimes present to a reviewer as an attempt to disguise the absence of notability. For instance, listing the number of published academic documents he has, his number of active collaborations, his leadership of various non- or semi-notable societies, and his participation in various journals of unknown importance. This one looks especially like WP:PEACOCK: Guillemin has participated in hundreds of national and international conferences, both as presenter and guest speaker. It looks to me like Professor Guillemin may indeed be notable, because of his membership in the Royal Society of New South Wales, and because the contributions the draft suggests he has made to neuroscience. If I were you, I would go through WP:NACADEMIC carefully, and remove non-notable material unless it somehow contributes to an overall narrative, or offers context for another significant point. For example, rather than say that he manages a consulting company, bring that up only if it adds context to his career or scientific trajectory, or to some other notable feature of his life. You seem to suggest in the draft that he has made a significant impact in neuroscience in his investigation of the kynurenine pathway. Spend more text on this, and be sure to use citations where you can to show the impact of this research. (Don't just put up citations of individual research papers he has published on the subject, or individual research papers that cite his research.) Hope this helps. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:55:13, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Ipsitam


Ipsitam (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsitam You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:41, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Satyadev yadav

This is orignal content which i have written by myself for my employer company. Why its getting rejected Satyadev yadav (talk) 10:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satyadev yadav Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on formal declarations you are required to make. Your draft was rejected because it is blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:05:45, 4 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Hispring


It's about 3 months that I was working on the draft and trying to fix the issues which were mentioned by reviewers (It was declined 3 times up to now). I provided lots of reliable sources in English, Persian, and even french to confirm the notability of the subject (AloPeyk). In comparison with Snapp!, the subject has been mentioned by more English sources such as financial tribune,bloomberglaw and daily star, meanwhile snapp! is available in Wikipedia but AloPeyk does not get the permission to published.

On the other hand, I used the advice of another user or paid attention to the advice of the second reviewer who said to me try to identify and mimic the language used Uber Eats in my article. But for the third time the draft was declined and the reviewer believed that the Uber Eats has poor quality. I have reviewed other articles like Uber Eats and snapp!, and I tried to use the same construction and language used in those articles in mine. I have tried to do my best to publish an article that follows Wikipedia policies. I tried my article to be non-advertisement and have a neutral point of view. But the draft cant get chance to be accepted. I really appreciate it if anyone helps me. Hispring (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:49:02, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Sj Lahiri


Sj Lahiri (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:04, 4 December 2020 review of draft by Sophie Quenard


Sophie Quenard (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to understand why my page Millennium Global was declined as I respected all guidelines...

I even took as example Kantox, Mesirow, Millennium Management pages as inspirations.

All my resources are reliable (Financial Times, awards... eg).

So please tell me how I can improve the page.

Many thanks, Kind regards,

Sophie

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Sophie Quenard#Managing a conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie, if you're going to model an article on another, you should probably pick from our Good Article or Featured Article pool. If I tried to build a house using bad blueprints, I'm sure you can guess the result. Further, you need to demonstrate that the subject meets either our General Notability Guideline, which wants mainstream, independent sources to be speaking about the company in detail. Being quoted in mainstream reliable sources or being interviewed does not count as being independent, since the content is entirely reliant on the Millennium Global rep's responses. Someone at the Wall Street Journal (or other reliable source) would have to crack their knuckles and write an in-depth solo piece about the corporation to qualify as "significant coverage ... independent of the subject". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:03:01, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Ellenfrancisosh

Under "Anglican Religious Orders", all of the active communities are listed. Some have Wikipedia pages and some do not. I submitted an article for the Order of Saint Helena and it was rejected because I didn't have enough references. I resubmitted with references, including published books (not by OSH) and newspaper articles, including the Times (London). It was rejected because I didn't have enough secondary sources.

When I look at the other Anglican orders' pages, I don't see secondary sources, so I'm wondering why the Order of Saint Helena entry was rejected when others have been accepted.


Ellenfrancisosh (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ellenfrancisosh: Hi there, your question is predicated on the assumption that those other articles you're referring to went through the same drafting and review process that you are going through, which I don't know to be true (as you didn't provide links). Short answer: the existence of other poorly-sourced articles at Wikipedia doesn't mean the community has accepted those poorly-sourced articles. It's always unfortunate when poorly-sourced content makes its way to live article space, which is why we want to do our best to encourage quality in the drafting phase. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:52:33, 4 December 2020 review of submission by Dalrund


I have gone through the previously submitted draft for Michael Apa and tried to reduce any non-encyclopedic language and content. I would love for any more direction or advice as to how to further move the draft toward a Wikipedia-appropriate tone, should the subject be found notable. Thanks for any guidance someone can provide!

Dalrund (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my question for you: Assuming this guy is an American, in a world where millions of Americans attend college each year and eventually get jobs and work to support themselves and their families, why would we care specifically about this guy? What makes him stand out from the millions of other people in America? This is why we have notability criteria that helps guide people in determining who should be written about in a global encyclopedia. Unless this guy has received lots of attention from mainstream periodicals that have independently written about him I can't see why this article would exist anywhere other than LinkedIn. Wikipedia, unfortunately is not a social media outlet, and we don't exist to host information about rank-and-file proletariat. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

04:29:19, 5 December 2020 review of submission by 2603:8080:E809:3600:547A:67DB:89E0:1451

The club now has a WPSL team, in addition to the men's UPSL team.

2603:8080:E809:3600:547A:67DB:89E0:1451 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


09:55:34, 5 December 2020 review of submission by Amitbxt


Amitbxt (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitbxt: you didn't ask a question. This draft does not indicate how this subject meets WP:GNG. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:41, 5 December 2020 review of submission by Akarnikos


Is it not notable that he's the only Ivy League graduate in history getting a pro contact straight from uni in a top 15 European leagues in the first team ? He already has been published in the Spanish wiki.

Can he be notable in any other way? Does it have to be under Wp:nfooty? Or by any other means?

Akarnikos (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:27:30, 5 December 2020 review of submission by Akarnikos

When my article was restored they have the name wrong. It is Haris Stamboulidis. Can you fix this?

His page has already been published and notable in the Spanish wiki. Double standards?

Can someone help me publish this article of a hard working player.

Akarnikos (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akarnikos Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by the reviewers. The Spanish Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:45:08, 5 December 2020 review of draft by Mmmm1362


Can I request you to edit and publish my article?

Mmmm1362 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmmm1362: No. Google and other searches, LinkedIn and liekwise are not considered reliable sources, so this would fail WP:BLP when in mainspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:48, 5 December 2020 review of submission by Sulekha Kavi


Sulekha Kavi (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The article I have submitted about Mr George Abraham (Social Entrepreneur) is a factually verified article about a genuine social activist for the visually challenged community in India. It is written in a neutral tone, avoiding hyperbole. I humbly disagree with the reviewer who has written a comment 'This is a press release , not an encyclopedia article'. I believe having an article about Mr George Abraham in Wikipedia, will be inspiring for the visually challenged in India, particularly students. When the event he founded - World Cup Cricket for the Blind - has an article in which he is mentioned, surely there should be a readable article on him too. I therefore sincerely request a review of my article, with constructive suggestions for improvement. Best wishes, Sulekha.

Sulekha Kavi The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. I'm glad that this person does good work, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about good work or good people. Social media or an alternative forum are better suited for what you want. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:44:04, 5 December 2020 review of submission by Joelrsmith

Hi, I am looking for help regarding why my article submission request was declined. It mentions that primary sources are not enough, but it does not specify exactly what that means, and the website that was linked doesn't offer any assistance in figuring out what else I will need to add for it to achieve the minimum standard. One page of a related snowmobile is the Yamaha Phazer which only lists 2 reference where I have provided no less than 69 references (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_Phazer)

Any assistance will be greatly appreciated.

joelrsmith (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Joelrsmith)


Joelrsmith (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the argument that other poor quality articles exist is not helpful, Yamaha Phazer should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joelrsmith: A primary source would be the Yamaha website talking about Yamaha products. A secondary source would be a mainstream publication like Motor Trend writing an article about the snowmobile independently of input from Yamaha. In order for an article subject to meet our General Notability Guideline, it must be supported with ample secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that have covered the subject in significant detail. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:08, 5 December 2020 review of submission by Pfxc001

I created my draft page with references however when I click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button, I'm redirected to edit the draft I've just created (with no indication as to what additional editing is expected). Thank you for any assistance you can provide to help me resolve this situation. Pfxc001 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pfxc001 You submit the draft by clicking "submit this draft" and then "publish changes" on the edit screen. However, your draft is unlikely to be accepted as you are only citing a primary source. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

09:47:22, 6 December 2020 review of submission by 73.173.127.82


73.173.127.82 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering can a page be set up for Gospel singer Reverend Paul Jones, famous for the song "I won't Complain". May 29, 2009, Rev. Paul Jones (1960-1990) was the founding Pastor of New Grove Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, TX. Rev. Jones was a dynamic preacher and singer whose life was cut short at the youthful age of 30 when he was murdered at his home in the Houston area in 1990.

@73.173.127.82: do you already have a Draft? If yes, it would be helpfull to know its name. If not, please start with the Article Wizard. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:50, 6 December 2020 review of submission by Nogiebenida


Nogiebenida (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


12:04:37, 6 December 2020 review of submission by GargVijay


GargVijay (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft that you created already has an article 2020 Delhi riots which is why your draft was rejected. Whispering(t) 02:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:57, 6 December 2020 review of submission by Techytrading


Techytrading (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User was blocked. Whispering(t) 02:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:13, 6 December 2020 review of draft by WikiCpa


Hi, I have submitted an article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vijey_Kumar_Ghai, which was reviewed and corrections made. Currently it has been declined for submission of more references. Given that the article has significant historical significance in the context Indian Military History, Could you review the section 2.1 Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 for which I believe there are adequate reliable, third party published references and confirm if the references to that section are sufficient.

Secondly, I need some advice as to whether any of the subsequent sections not supported can continue at all. in which case I can delete the remaining sections completely since getting the WW2 references is going to take time. I have had to write to the British Army archives and they may take a few months to respond.

Thanks. --WikiCpa (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC) WikiCpa (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:55:20, 6 December 2020 review of submission by United World President


United World President (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC) This article is about an Indian personality who deserves her inspirational life story and success to be known to the world. Please approve it.[reply]

No. In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident; you need to provide a source for every single claim the draft makes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 23:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:58, 6 December 2020 review of draft by Mfarabola


Mfarabola (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comment by Hoary in the draft. SMB99thx my edits! 07:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:26:16, 6 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kae22


Hi, I don't really understand the reason why my article didn't get approved. Could someone give me some direction of what I need to change/add to make it acceptable? Thanks

Kae22 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim the draft makes must be cited to a strong secondary source that corroborates it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 23:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 7

01:58:43, 7 December 2020 review of submission by GMLogar

I add a reference and make a game play narration, ı don't qualify the advertisement. All wiki also have gameplay narration.! GMLogar (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:23:55, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Mapostolidis


Hello, I am trying to publish a wiki page for ClassicFlix which is a home video company that has released some important historic films and TV shows over the past years that other companies have avoided (link to my wiki page below).

It has been rejected despite me cleaning this up several times.

Several of articles I reference are in reputable publications and have significant reviews of the films they have released. However the articles are not about the company and therefore it appears to be getting rejected. Home video companies do not make news about themselves. They are publications because of the things they release. So I am, not sure what to do. I believe this company is worthy of a reference in wikipedia because of the great work that that do. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ClassicFlix#cite_note-10


Mapostolidis (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:20:15, 7 December 2020 review of submission by 202.90.134.187


202.90.134.187 (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for Promotion (or "spreading the word"). Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:34, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Ashutosh7039


Ashutosh7039 (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashutosh7039: Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Instagram is not a reliable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:42:42, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Stuartwilks


This page is being declined submission, but I believe I have met all the criteria and more. The references include extensive secondary sources, such as independent directories, government announcements (not press releases as alleged) and newspaper articles such as those from the Racing Post and the Sunderland Echo. The subject has been awarded honours by HM Queen and chairs a government body. The subject is of far more significance than many other individuals with pages on Wikipedia and yet repeated declinations are being entered. Please can you advise how to address this?

Stuartwilks (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:01, 7 December 2020 review of draft by MrEksh


MrEksh (talk) 08:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm asking about the Nader Sabry article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nader_Sabry

I don't understand why it was denied. I have many sources and references from neutral sites and books. Please update me on the matter

Toddles. MrEksh

09:12:01, 7 December 2020 review of submission by DBruton5


DBruton5 (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DBruton5 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy; in addition, it appears that you do not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable football player. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:26:32, 7 December 2020 review of submission by 37.203.94.144


37.203.94.144 (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

local

Request on 10:13:27, 7 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sehran hassan



Sehran hassan (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

swicth

10:14:06, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Sehran hassan


Sehran hassan (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=992833992"