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 Tech306 (talk | contribs) at 19:14, 9 December 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


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]
Mfarabola, please also see what I've written about COI. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 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

Hi MrEksh. The only book cited is self-published and written by the subject, so neither reliable nor independent. Of the remaining 20 sources, only two are reliable, independent, and secondary: Time and Gulf News. Neither contains significant coverage of the subject. The draft fails to demonstrate that the subject is is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). On top of that, the draft is written to praise the subject, like a hagiography, which is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. There appears to be little hope of the draft every being accepted for publication, no matter how much you edit it. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

Sehran hassan You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:33, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Transfest80

Have written the article in neutral view have removed unwanted references. Kindly review the article Transfest80 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transfest80 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Transfest is a sockpuppet of AjKa180 / Vijayclicker93. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:31, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Gvrpkumar


Phanindra Kumar.GVR (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gvrpkumar: Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other social media arent reliable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:11:00, 7 December 2020 review of submission by 2409:4071:2413:8D63:B9D6:A294:C68:A3C3


2409:4071:2413:8D63:B9D6:A294:C68:A3C3 (talk) 16:11, 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) 16:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:25, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Dodas19


Hello, My entry for Maestro Arts has been declined because it 'reads more like an advertisement'. I tried really hard for that not to happen so I would appreciate any help you can offer to take out those bits. Certainly, there are a few links to the company's website, so I can take out all of those. But nearly all the other links are to books and music periodicals and broadsheets. Once I've taken out all the links to the website, is there anything else I should edit? Are you able to give me this advice? Many thanks in advance, Ariane

Dodas19 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:12:03, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Reema Hasan

i need my article reviewed because i am willing to share it for personal outcomes and publishing it will help me in my life so i would appreciate your revision as well as submission .. please help me reach good submission and edit .. thank you in advance. Reema Hasan (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Hasan Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company, and has no interest in aiding your career. If it is your company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:26, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Marquis Newell

I believe that the person who has last reviewed was not thorough enough Marquis Newell (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Newell You've had more than one review, and they all reached the same conclusion. Please heed the comments by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:10:25, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Mmmm1362


Following your advice, I have removed unreliable sources now. Please help me to publish this article Mmmm1362 (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmmm1362: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all draft articles are approved eventually. This is incorrect. If you fail to demonstrate that the subject meets our notability criteria, the article will not pass. From what I can see, it's unclear why we would consider him notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:37:03, 7 December 2020 review of submission by Tmreborn

Hello! Just wondering why exactly this the article i was trying to publish is not notable enough. This producer has produced/written music for some of this biggest names in the industry! Is there anything else i can do to help? thanks you!

Tmreborn (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmreborn: Hi there, unfortunately, notability is not inherited from the people that a person works for or with. You would need to demonstrate that the subject meets one of our relevant notability guidelines, either WP:MUSICBIO or our General Notability Guideline which requires subjects to have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage = in-depth writing about the subject, not passing mentions, and not data found on content scraper websites or in databases like ASCAP. Reliable sources = mainstream news sites, mainstream magazines, books from mainstream publishers, etc. (see our reliable sourcing guidelines). Independent = does not involve the subject's participation. So interviews don't help, the subject's own website or self-published autobiography wouldn't count, etc. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the article is way too promotional to be acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 22:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "the tender age of 2" was a bit much... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:36, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Bcesoccerus


I tried to write an article about BCE Premium TV but I'm not very professional in making it completely please help it guys.

Bcesoccerus (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:01:24, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Hickeygamez


My submission has been declined twice. I feel like I made the requested changes, and it is still being declined. It says I need more sources, but it has many. Please advise! Hickeygamez (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hickeygamez (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickeygamez: The declines say that you need to demonstrate that the subject has received significant coverages from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage = in depth coverage, not passing mentions. Reliable sources = mainstream sources known for editorial oversight (see WP:RS). Independent = without the subject's participation. So for instance, many of the references in the article are cited to the journal you are writing about. So those would do nothing to demonstrate notability, as they are not independent of the subject. You should also see Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), because it might be easier to demonstrate that the article has met one of the criteria there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for your response. I know a lot of the references are from the journal itself. I hope that someone will eventually join me in this project to help simplify it. However, some of the other references are significant, reliable, independent coverage. For example, reference #17: https://cfms.org/what-we-do/education/cmej Hickeygamez (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickeygamez: No, that isn't independent at all. Its published on the subject's website, and as far as I can tell it is not a scan/scapped version of some newspaper article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? CFMS (https://cfms.org/) is not the same as CMEJ (www.cmej.ca). Thank-you for the follow ups! I really appreciate your help!Hickeygamez (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC) I wanted to follow up to say CFMS just posted that as a feature about CMEJ. They are otherwise completely independent. My second question, is this a good source? [1] Hickeygamez (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hickeygamez: I call bullshit on that. https://cfms.org/what-we-do/education/cmej is not an independent feature authored by CFMS. It's an advertisement in the voice of CMEJ ("For access to our latest issue ... visit our website [with links to CMEJ's website]"). That it has been published on CFMS's website doesn't make it independent. If you can't tell the difference, you won't get very far creating content here. Furthermore, the first and third parts of the ad are an exact copy of Draft:Canadian Medical Education Journal.
--Worldbruce (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://med.uottawa.ca/department-innovation/news/canadian-medical-education-journal

No BS intended! I find it odd that it is written in first-person as well, but I have no control over how they published it. They are completely independent organizations, but I know that CFMS offered to do a feature of CMEJ and used the wikipedia write-up for their ad (not vice versa). If this doesn't work as a reliable source, I will keep looking and appreciate guidance as to how to find it. For example, what about these: https://med.uottawa.ca/department-innovation/news/canadian-medical-education-journal https://publons.com/journal/47072/canadian-medical-education-journal/ https://www.cpass.umontreal.ca/tag/canadian-medical-education-journal/ https://mededconference.ca/about/why-ccme-right-you https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2774/ What about when specific universities feature CMEJ papers on their website? https://emergencymed.queensu.ca/about/announcements/dr-damon-dagnone-publishes-article-cmej-reclaiming-physician-identity-its-time

When I look at a similar wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Medical_Association_Journal, they only have 3 references that aren't CMAJ references. That's very similar to what I am trying to do with CMEJ. Hickeygamez (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:09:14, 7 December 2020 review of draft by Angel200489


Hello, my draft was rejected for not having reliable sources. The article is for a season of The Great Kenyan Bake Off. There are pages for each season of all the versions of this show. However, for this particular season, there are no articles written about it. All the information I've gathered from the show's website or from watching the episodes. Even if there are no articles to substantiate the information, that doesn't mean that the information is not true, it just means that the information comes from videos or from social platforms that I cannot submit as reference.

What can I do in this instance?

Angel200489 (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

07:32:43, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 115.85.94.2

i dont understand why my talk is rejected again. which part that my page is contrarary with Wikipedia

115.85.94.2 (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@115.85.94.2: First, please choose one of two options:
  1. translate the draft to english
  2. contribute the article to Wikipedia in the language the draft is written in
If you choose option 1), please start of by grabbing reliable sources that show this company meets WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Justine Tung

Hello, I asked for this page to be deleted a few days ago, but my friend has said he would like to view the page again. I had copied and pasted the text into a Word document as a sort of archive, however I now realise I didn't push save. Now we both want to see the page but I can't access it now. I put it on this page as it is technically an article for creation. If I could either have a plain text version of the page (including hyperlinks), or access to the complete history of the page, I would be grateful. I do not think this discussion "represents the consensus" as the admin claims, as both people who made substantial edits to the page would like a plain text version of the page. 82.3.185.12 (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered, with very specific instructions on how to go about it, in this thread at WP:REFUND. Possibly (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: The notability of this subject still hasn't changed. Why is this here again? Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:28:12, 8 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Daniellesmall247


Hi there,

I had submitted an Article for Creation and received the comment below from Bilorv:

'Close to WP:NBOOK but I believe the Financial Times source is not a full-length review (though I can't access it) and the Evening Standard source is not really a review. A full-length review in a respected publication with editorial oversight might take it over to notability.'

Therefore, I removed the Financial Times source (as it was behind a submission wall) and added a review from Forbes Agency Council and details of relating podcast which launched since the first submission. I wanted to check on the progress of the submission but have seen that the page has been deleted. The first time round the feedback was helpful and I'm not sure if I can make a 'Requests for undeletion' without knowing what the problem with the submission was. On looking for the page the note I found was as below:

'21:24, 2 December 2020 Athaenara talk contribs deleted page Draft:No Bullsh*t Leadership (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND) (thank)'

Any advice on what I should do next would be gratefully received.

Many thanks,

Daniellesmall247 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniellesmall247 (talk) 09:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniellesmall247: aparently you blanked the draft at some point, which the admins count as you having given up. If you want to continiue, simply ask at WP:REFUND. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:40:59, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Pontos92


Hi Wikipedia Community,

I have submitted a draft for a review and had it rejected due to what I understood was a concern with reliable sources.

I am enquiring as to what you might suggest my draft requires in order to be published?

I have referred to other pages that meet the same profile as my article and found my referencing outweighs those already published.

One source is a subsidiary to a credible news publisher in NewsCorp, while another a statement released by the official governing body of football in South Australia.

Thank you for your time, look forward to hearing from you.


Kind regards

Pontos92 (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:48:52, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 92.50.195.50


I am requesting a re-review cause I believe I have complied with the requirements made in regards to my previous draft. All content that might be regarded as promotional has been removed and the article now contains just facts, which are easily verifiable. It's my first time writing a Wikipedia article so please don't be too harsh on me, I'm just learning=) 92.50.195.50 (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your sources seem to mostly be routine coverage that does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:20, 8 December 2020 review of draft by Msmmsm1990


Please publish my prof page 💟

Msmmsm1990 (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msmmsm1990 Please review the comments left by reviewers, as well as conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Msmmsm1990If you are writing about your professor, you have a conflict of interest as his student. Since you are submitting a draft, that is okay, but you do need to be familiar with the conflict of interest policy. If your professor is compensating you in any way for writing about him(not just money), you need to read about paid editing. Please read the comments left by reviewers of your draft, and also Your First Article. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a professor, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable academic figure. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what do you say. I just know prof Hassan Mohammadi Nevisi is a great professor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmmsm1990 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Msmmsm1990 I am sorry that you don't understand, but I am unable to say anything else. I'm glad that you have a great professor, but that is not a good enough reason for a Wikipedia article. If you just want to tell the world about your professor, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Of course, he is also a global influential person. However, if possible, review, edit and publish this article yourself without conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msmmsm1990 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:33, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 95.67.63.194


In this material, links are indicated exclusively to proven authoritative Ukrainian media resources 95.67.63.194 (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected as a blatant advertisement, and as such it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell the world about a business. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:33:08, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Annalee7

My article has been denied twice on the basis of insufficient secondary reliable sources. I don’t understand why because the sources I used are trusted newspaper organizations in Nigeria that reported on the NGO. Is it because the sources are not American that they are not reliable? I just want to know how to fix the issue so the article can get published. Annalee7 (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Courtesy link: Draft:Aids for Women, Adolescent and Children International Organization[reply]

  • Annalee7 Your draft is sourced to press releases and other routine announcements. A Wikipedia article about an organization 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. Press releases and announcements of routine activities do not establish notability. Please review the links here for more information, as well as Your First Article.
If you are associated with this organization, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was given advice from the last editor who denied my article to go on google and search for sources. The sources that I used were what was available on the NGO. I simply used all the information that I could find on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annalee7 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Annalee7 If the only sources that are available do not establish that this organization meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable organization, then there is nothing else that you can do at this time. Perhaps in the future independent sources will take note of this organization and choose to give it significant coverage; then it would merit an article. That coverage does not exist at this time, it seems. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:34, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Marija W Marinkovic

Dear Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback and professional comments and help

As I am not that familiar with the rules and constraints that apply to Wikipedia, i put up the last text version based on the examples of texts telecommunications companies from other countries published. Since Telekom Serbia is the largest telecommunications company in the Balkan region, I suppose that information about this company is worth attention. Telecom Serbia is a state-owned company. Because of this fact, I considered it logical, to put links to state sources of information as references - such as The Serbian Business Registers Agency, Serbian Post, REGULATORY AGENCY FORELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND POSTAL SERVICES.

I would like to ask for your help with a specific example of how the text should look, even an example of at least one sentence, which would be written according to the rules of Wikipedia. Additionally, I would be very grateful if you sent me an example of an independent reference. If it is possible I would beg you to send me this example even in the form of a link? I am just beginning to work with Wikipedia. Therefore, to you, my questions may look naive - but still I ask for your help because, at the moment, you are the administrator who looked through all the information in the most detailed way. When it comes to your comment in November on the conflict of interest, I immediately replied in Teahouse that I am not writing this article for commercial purposes and do not expect to receive any benefits from writing this text. Due to the fact that I am an initial user of the Wikipedia toolkit, perhaps my answer was mistakenly sent to another discussion thread. For this I am sorry. I look forward to hearing from you! Thank you in advace for your answers and your help.

Marija W Marinkovic (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Marija W Marinkovic[reply]

16:15:38, 8 December 2020 review of submission by 50.234.216.194


50.234.216.194 (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any questions? SMB99thx my edits! 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:22:34, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Lalisekhon

Hello: I have tried to make the page neutral and also factual and referenced. This is not a resume page or LinkedIn. If there are portions that need deletion/amendment please let me know. I have looked at colleagues pages on wikipedia for guidance. As a leading voice in Neurosurgery/Spine Surgery what edits does it need? Thank you so much for suggestions. Lali Sekhon Lalisekhon (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalisekhon Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. Please review the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, it is strongly discouraged for Wikipedia users to write about themselves. This is because people naturally write favorably about themselves, and have difficulty writing exclusively based on the content of independent reliable sources and not their own knowledge of themselves. What you wrote reads as little more than a resume, even though you say it isn't one. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:47:44, 8 December 2020 review of submission by Shamit24

I thought this will helps for approval for Wikipedia page not for promotion What should I do now?

Shamit24 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shamit24 There is nothing that you can do, as no amount of editing can confer notability on a subject. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 9

02:39:53, 9 December 2020 review of draft by Nickjplatt


Hi there, hoping for some feedback on my draft page if anyone can spare some time and expertise? The page was rejected for not having significant coverage. I posted some external sources and had hoped that it was enough to show the subject had merit. I also viewed similar pages, including one of another US soccer team which seems to have less sources cited than the page I created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamsburg_International_F.C.

I can add more depth to the page if needed but i tried to keep simple at the start as the tool suggested. Thanks so much for your time, this is my first page and so I am learning still!

Best wishes, Nick

Nickjplatt (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:40:49, 9 December 2020 review of submission by MarthaBehan


MarthaBehan (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the page with the company's official logo and included references for the awards and honours. The references for the Wikipedia are and we believe the following references qualify for a Wikipedia article: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/greg-mortimer-australian-new-zealand-passengers-go-into-quarantine-after-arriving-in-melbourne "The operator of the Greg Mortimer ship, Aurora Expeditions, organised the flight, which left the Uruguayan capital Montevideo on Saturday morning local time." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirius-uruguay-cruiseshi-idUSKCN21S21M "The operation began in the evening when the Greg Mortimer, an Antarctic cruise ship operated by Aurora Expeditions, docked in the port of Montevideo."

If those are the only places in those sources where it's discussed, then those sources are too thin on details to be usable here. We do not allow fair-use images in drafts and that logo would be fair-use under normal circumstances (and images don't help a draft anyhow - third-party sources do). Keep an eye on this space: Bastard Helper From Hell mode has been activated. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to your sources:
—A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarthaBehan: I would also like to ask what your connexion to Aurora Expeditions is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 06:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:58, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Fabregado


I have successfully edited those things out, and I have included the required reliable sources, kindly revisit and make a new decision. Thank you Fabregado (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabregado The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. No amount of editing can confer notability on this person. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:46, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Dukerala


Dukerala (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please advice on what is the exact problem and how to resolve it.

Dukerala The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The text is a blatant advertisement for the university and has almost no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to indicate how the university meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Since the draft was rejected, it will only waste your time and that of others to pursue this further at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:23, 9 December 2020 review of submission by GeometryDashFan12

If this article is declined, then can people please not add a CSD tag? Oh, and can you review it please? a gd fan (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeometryDashFan12 Drafts are not deleted just because they are declined. If a draft is declined, that suggests there is at least a chance it can eventually meet standards. If a draft is "rejected", then the reviewer feels there is little to no chance for improvement. Even rejected drafts are not deleted just for being rejected. You have properly submitted your draft and it is pending. As noted on the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,427 pending submissions waiting for review." 331dot (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thank you a gd fan (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:45, 9 December 2020 review of draft by UNITYwoody


UNITYwoody (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UNITYwoody You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:57:31, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Dukerala


Please suggest how to make this page live. The Kerala University of Digital Sciences , Innovation and Technology is a digital university approved by the Government of Kerala State and the gazette notification has been linked for reference.

Dukerala (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


16:00:04, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Jitesh1144


Jitesh1144 (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitesh1144 Wikipedia is not social media or other place for you to tell the world about yourself. This is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:52, 9 December 2020 review of submission by MotifPublisher


1. I've rewritten this several times - I've certainly looked up TNT and the other codes Sulphurboy used in his assessment, but I really don't understand what's not objective about this. I rewrote several sentences, and have taken out almost all adjectives and adverbs over the course of rewrites. Every fact is cited now, I believe, and has been for a few revisions. It seems very much "just the facts" to me, so there must be something I'm missing. Sulphurboy is not responding to me, so I can't get any more info. I'm down to rewrite it again (what TNT implies I should). But honestly I don't know what to change.

2. Mr. Weiss is a prominent local figure - many of his collaborators on books and articles and peers in this community have wikipedia pages. It certainly seems like he should qualify. I don't see anything press-release about this (I've written hundreds and received thousands of press releases over the years. It's certainly factual, but there's no element of promotion, nor any hook or any of the elements I'd expect in a release. Again, I don't understand what I'm missing.

3. Apparently a point of pain was that I listed as paid. He's an old acquaintance, and was going to throw me a few bucks for my time in helping with this (and I work for a radical transparency publication, so my instinct was to disclose that.) He's not going to pay me any more - we scrapped that, so I removed that element in the submission. Although I'm not getting paid, this is one of the celeb (by local standards) authors around here, and I definitely think a wiki is merited.

Advice is very very welcomed. Thanks!


MotifPublisher (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 18:43:55, 9 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dewintate


I believe I have submitted two new articles to be reviewed (LPT(Band) and Sin Parar (Album)), but, as these are my first, I just wondered if I could verify that they were submitted correctly and are, in fact, waiting to be reviewed. Thank you so much!

DewinDewintate (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Dewintate (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:14:51, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Tech306


Tech306 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 19:14:51, 9 December 2020 review of submission by Tech306[reply]


Hi there,

I submitted this article from a different log in/page before but it got declined due to these reasons:

"1. This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. 2. Blatant advertising and copy-pasting of mission statements including trademark symbols"


Please provide any specific feedback you can to improve this article so it hopefully doesn't get declined again. 1. If I don't have to include trademarks, I won't. I just thought I had to since their product is trademarked. 2. I also tried to change a lot of words so its not copy-paste but there are some words I just can't change because it will change the whole sentence and might also misinterpret what this company believes in.. 3. I provided all possible references that exist about this company to back up the information I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia. It is an amazing tech company who support lots of sectors in Canada so I think more people should know about their story.

Your help is appreciated.

Sincerely, Tech306

Article I submitted back in Nov:

About

Established in 2015, North Star Systems Inc (NSS) is a technology company with headquarters in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada and conducts business globally. NSS develops, manufactures, licenses, supports and sells hardware and cloud-based collaboration software for Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). [1]


North Star Systems Inc. developed and coined the “Six IIoT Concept” which includes Sensors, Hardware, Firmware, Cloud Server, Software and Network. [2]


NSS hardware offering includes TATTLE™ devices and sensors. NSS software is accessible through online web portal and mobile applications. Together the complete solution of hardware and software combined, is known as TATTLE SYSTEMS™ [3]


TATTLE SYSTEMS™ is a real-time, controlled, remote monitoring and data solution for Agriculture, Energy and Water and Wastewater markets. It works as a complete and closed system, connecting the device to the user through any smartphone, web app, or tablet, anytime, anywhere. [4] [5]


TATTLE SYSTEMS™ provides clients with asset tracking, tank monitoring, logistic management, inventory solutions and equipment security for multiple assets and applications all on one platform. Client’s operations benefit from increased profitability, efficiencies, sustainability and compliance while optimizing asset management, inventory levels, client experience and employee productivity. [6] [7]


TATTLE SYSTEMS™ includes:

• Hardware – (Communication device TATTLE™ + sensor)

• Software – (Cloud services, WebApp, iOS, Android mobile application)

[8] [9]

As of 2020, North Star Systems has developed over 15 solutions for various applications including:

1. Anhydrous ammonia stationary tanks and moving / delivery units

2. Gasoline stationary tanks and moving / delivery units

3. Diesel stationary tanks and moving / delivery units

4. Fuel Lock ® Commercial (tank security and level) [10]

5. Compressed gases (stationary tanks and moving / delivery units)

6. Liquid fertilizer (stationary tanks and moving / delivery units)

7. Propane

8. Soil moisture and temperature

9. Water

10. Wastewater

11. Granular Fertilizer bins

12. Chemical tanks

13. Oil production

14. Oil storage (stationary tanks and moving / delivery units)

15. Asset tracking (GNSS fleet manager)

16. Temperature

[11]


North Star Systems – Achievements and Awards

• 2018 CAAR Conference – The Innovation Showdown Award [12]

• 2019 NSBA Business Builder Awards – Small Business Finalist [13]

• 2020 CAAR Conference - Best Exhibitor Award [14]


History

North Star Systems Inc. was founded in 2015 by Aaron Serhan. For 29 years he owned a full-service independent crop input dealership. Aaron was joined by colleague Curtis Kolibab, 20+ years in Agriculture distribution and logistics and Denis Levi, a developer with 20+ years of experience, in the growth of NSS and the development of TATTLE SYSTEMS™. [15] [16] TATTLE™ devices are manufactured in Saskatoon, SK, Canada. The primary market of NSS and TATTLE SYSTEMS™ is Agriculture. As of 2020, North Star Systems Inc. has 14 full-time employees. [17]


References

  1. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/about-us/
  2. ^ https://northstarsystems.ca/
  3. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/pvt-tattle/
  4. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/pv-tdu-tattle/
  5. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/tattle-systems/
  6. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/testimonials/
  7. ^ https://northstarsystems.ca/
  8. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/pv-tdu-tattle/
  9. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/tattle-systems/
  10. ^ https://www.fuellock.ca/
  11. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/tattle-systems/
  12. ^ https://caar.org/training/ntsp/2-uncategorised/761-2018-caar-conference-day-two-recap
  13. ^ https://nsbasask.com/2019-business-builder-awards-presented-by-nutrien-finalists/
  14. ^ https://caar.org/ag-retail-news/1182-2020-caar-conference-day-three-recap
  15. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/about-us/
  16. ^ https://innovationsask.ca/success-stories/north-star-systems
  17. ^ https://www.tattle.systems/about-us/tattle-team/

References 1. https://www.tattle.systems/about-us/ 2. https://northstarsystems.ca/ 3. https://www.tattle.systems/pvt-tattle/ 4. https://www.tattle.systems/pv-tdu-tattle/ 5. https://www.tattle.systems/tattle-systems/ 6. https://www.tattle.systems/testimonials/ 7. https://northstarsystems.ca/ 8. https://www.fuellock.ca/ 9. https://caar.org/training/ntsp/2-uncategorised/761-2018-caar-conference-day-two-recap 10. https://nsbasask.com/2019-business-builder-awards-presented-by-nutrien-finalists/ 11. https://caar.org/ag-retail-news/1182-2020-caar-conference-day-three-recap 12. https://www.tattle.systems/about-us/ 13. https://www.tattle.systems/about-us/tattle-team/ 14. https://innovationsask.ca/success-stories/north-star-systems

Other relevant References/Articles 1. North Star Systems https://northstarsystems.ca/ 2. Tattle Systems https://www.tattle.systems/ 3. Their blog: https://www.tattle.systems/tattle-news/ 4. Article on their partner website “Telus”: https://www.telus.com/en/business/blog/iot-agriculture-tech-monitoring-levels-farm 5. Article on their partner website “Pycom”: https://pycom.io/environmentally-friendly-precision-farming/ 6. Article in “The Western Producer” newspaper https://www.producer.com/2020/03/device-makes-anhydrous-ammonia-tanks-smarter/ 7. Hudson Bay news paper “The Junction Review” April 22, 2020.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=993274792"