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 TechNerd22 (talk | contribs) at 01:11, 28 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
June 2025
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 22

01:16:51, 22 December 2020 review of draft by Zzalpha


Saab 401 article and the Einar Bergström article, fame factor issue?

I have the artikle sent to Draft, as missing refrences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saab_401#The_Semi-Hovercraft_project_in_Sweden_1957-1982

Problem:

  • "Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: There are no references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"
  • "There are no references at all." - To me it is a unspecified complaint, and as such there is nothing I can do??
  • My question is what shall I do, to this task?

Fame factor?

I have another article with the same problems (I have written and published many with no issues, so far) and it is claimed to lack fame. Mainly as not having fame enough for the English Wikipedia, not being published enough (but OK in Swedish and German Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Einar_Bergstr%C3%B6m

By fame means being in who-is-who publications is quite all right, as for Einar Bergströms colleges that became bosses and as such published there. They were in a at the time military secret development project of the Saab 35 Draken and as such only their boss Erik Bratt was actually in the press being published. By Saab AB, Bratt was the leader of the construction team of Bertil Dillner, Hermann Behrbohm, Einar Bergström and Olof Ljungström. The project included as key parts development of supersonic flight and the delta wing concept.

In Sweden the project of Saab 35 Draken is a national icon and Erik Bratt was the Swedish eq to Willy Messerschmitt in Nazi Germany or Kelly Johnson (engineer) in the US, and their projects were icons and signification aviation history. I guess that is why there is no issue there, and in the US The Saab 35 Draken is no icon? The icon-status and the dream-team factor of the experts of Bratt is not the same in the US? I can accept that, and try to approach Bergströms English article in a different angle about that. Military secrets means in fact non-existence in a way, how important the tasks ever was? OK for that part it is an acceptable failure and have to rest getting it published in Swedish and German Wikipedia.

But in the second civilian part of Bergströms article there are the "pubished in independent sources"

The latter part of the Bergström article is civilian and as such being published and quite known. (I can accept the initial failure, removing the entire part with work for the military secret aviation development important parts of the mans life.) Military secret means non-existence, later when secrecy is lifted documentation is since long to a large extent destroyed.

But the second half is civilian and being published and documented, having a fame factor being front page on the most important Tech news weekly magazine in Sweden, twice and a full page in a daily newspaper? I think that is more fame factor than being in who-is-who?

But the article about the Saab 401, is documented referenced?

What is asked for?

  • The National sea tech museum has references to the Saab-project (Saab 401 exists)
  • There is a picture with the genuine military staff visitors (Saab 401 exists)
  • It had the same purpose as British and US similar projects, and it failed, navy got obviously less interested paying, project dropped
  • The project continued as an open civilian project, being published.

To me it as the required references for a English Wikipedia project.

As we see if we read the published magazine articles (by the largest weekly tech news magazine in Sweden Ny Teknik and its forerunner Teknisk Tidskrift, You can read them here used in the Swedish and German Wikipedia (but as scanned magazine articles have no values in the English Wikipedia as references, only the dry references to the paper issues have, English Wikipedia has a different interpret than Swedish and German Wikipedia here): [1][2] Yes you can click on the articles and read them.

Then there are one of the major national daily newspapers having a full page about the FFA Hovercraft project, but the editor today (the man with the rights don't like Wikipedia so we can't publish the scanned article) [3] But it is a reference describing what this Saab 401 article describes as well. I can't see what is missing.

Problem:

  • "Symbol opinion vote.svg Comment: There are no references at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)"

"There are no references at all" is absolutly unspecific on what is missing references, what refernces are considered weak etc. I have been working with computers and error reports like that are impossible to meet.

  • My question is what shall I do, to this task?

--Zzalpha (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Zzalpha (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ny Teknik - Halvsvävaren Ny Teknik 1969 #14
  2. ^ Teknisk Tidskrift - Flytande trafik med amfibiebuss på vatten och is Teknisk Tidskrift 1977 #16
  3. ^ "Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning 1972-02-13 Svensk luftstråledriven svävare över vatten is och snövidder "

04:11:36, 22 December 2020 review of submission by 108.52.91.53

108.52.91.53 (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i'm inquiring to see if this draft can be permanently deleted.

It will be automatically marked for deletion after six months of inactivity. The original author can request deletion by marking the draft with {{Db-g7}}(as you see it here, not in the edit window where I have added coding to suppress its function on this page) If you are the original author, log in first. Be advised that there is no such thing as a 'permanent deletion'; deleted pages remain visible to administrators if they look for it, and there are websites that archive Wikipedia pages. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:38:04, 22 December 2020 review of draft by VQuetzal


Hello, I apologize for the annoyance that these submissions might have caused. They were not submitted in order to game the system or hope for a speedy review. The reason for multiple submissions is that this wiki is about a basketball season that is ongoing, so I have been updating it every few days to input scores and other news as it comes in. That is how I ran the other wiki pages for prior seasons (i.e. 18-19 and 19-20). Should I hold off on making any updates for the time being? I was under the impression that I was simply updating the page rather than notifying the reviewers. - VQuetzal

VQuetzal (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the confusion is that another editor created an article on the same topic at around the same time. It was much less well-developed than the one you are working on. It was moved back to "Draft" space. Draft:2020–21 USC Trojans women's basketball team (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 05:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:01:27, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Wikibrother75

updated references / reliable sources (News). Wikibrother75 (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: for your notice. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:30:57, 22 December 2020 review of submission by EslingWill

Is that it? Rejected on the say so of one person? Is that how wikipedia works? EslingWill (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EslingWill Committees do not review drafts, so yes. It is possible to resubmit a draft, but in this case, your draft was deleted as a copyright violation and as promotional. Content posted to Wikipedia must be released under a license compatible with Wikipedia, which allows reuse of content for any purpose(even commercial) with attribution(which as a writer you may not wish to do). Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. In order for you to be successful in writing a draft about yourself, you need to in essence forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources have chosen to write about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional.
If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media, a personal website, or other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:38, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Sheri Qadri

I want to show my company in Wikipedia and my competitors have pages in Wikipedia. My company should be remembered by generation. This is the only platform we can save our history.I will be very great if you accept my Page. Sheri Qadri (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheri Qadri Wikipedia has no interest in helping you increase your company's exposure, in documenting what the company considers to be its history, or in otherwise helping you tell the world about your company. That your competitors might merit articles does not automatically mean your company does, see Other Stuff Exists. Your company would only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources choosing on their own to write about it(no press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business transactions), showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Because of this, not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field, it depends on the sources.
Furthermore, as a company representative you have a severe conflict of interest; you also are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to formally comply with the paid editing policy. If you just want to tell the world about your company, you should use your own website, social media, or alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheri Qadri: This is the only platform we can save our history - "archiving" web sites like archive.org are much better suited for that task. I recommend doing what many companies do: Create a web site for the company. Once it is up and running, go to archive.org and follow the steps to record a "snapshot in time" of each of the important pages on your web site. You could also consider making physical copies of "important to people outside your company" company documents and arranging for libraries or other "physical media" archiving institutions to hold copies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 15:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:06, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Gauravsingh9934

Gauravsingh9934 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. To do so, please edit this existing section, instead of creating new sections. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:45:01, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Anksays

Anksays (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anksays You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:18, 22 December 2020 review of submission by Paul.jonah.paul

Draft: Shift4 Payments is an unusual situation and I would like help. After this company went public, there was a great deal of new press from mainstream sources. But the draft had been previously rejected. An editor here said a multi-editor discussion should be started on whether it met notability. So I started an RfC, which is now resolved Draft talk:Shift4 Payments#Request for Comments re: Draft: Shift4 Payments. Three of the three users said the article was now notable. The admin who determined consensus said it should be resubmitted on AfC, and added a comment to that effect on top of the page and allowed it back on the queue, but given there is still a rejection template atop the draft, I doubt anyone will even read the comment. On the Talk page for the admin explained: “As for my closure itself, my thought process there was that editors seemed to approve of it on notability grounds but had some lingering concerns on COI/neutrality grounds. Thus, it's ok to resubmit it, but an AfC reviewer could object to perceived neutrality issues (at which point you could revise and resubmit)” User talk:Rosguill#Admin Closure Question. I have since made extensive edits to the article to remove the sourcing and language that editors in the RFC found questionable. It would be great if someone could do a review as this article has been stuck in various discussions since August. Thanks Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul.jonah.paul (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

01:07:08, 23 December 2020 review of draft by Too Much Distractions


Hello, so i’m trying to write a page on Draft:Gawr Gura, and the reason it was declined was because of not enough reliable resources, and significant coverage. Which i understand, and will add later.

But on the talk page of the draft, the user BlinxTheKitty said that this page isnt for wikipedia: “This entire page isn't needed here, Vtubers are really unnotable and the reason for your page creation is to rival another existing page, along with the fact you upload their artwork to commons without a proper copyright notice.”

For the copyright image, i have removed it, but what about the topic? Is it really unneeded? One of the vtubers (Hoshimachi Suisei) in the same group (Hololive Production) is the only one that has an english wikipedia article, but a bunch of other vtubers in the same group already has wikipedia articles in japanese, including Gawr Gura.

Too Much Distractions (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:33, 23 December 2020 review of draft by Basariya

please help me how should i improve the page Basariya (talk) 08:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:03:43, 23 December 2020 review of submission by Farhan Rijvi

Farhan Rijvi (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Rijvi You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to post their resumes or otherwise tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia where we are interested in what independent reliable sources say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please also see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:13:28, 23 December 2020 review of draft by Naradice

Thanks for the time to review the draft, and appreciate the feedback. I wanted to understand the relative comparison (if this is valid) around the validity of references that are present in other similar pages such as Geomag, Kinetic Sand, Kapla

Another question is that most independent articles of LaQ are written in Japanese - would these secondary references be accepted, given that they can't be independently verified by an English language speaker?


Naradice (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naradice I've fixed your links to proper internal links, the whole web address is not necessary. Please see other stuff exists; each draft/article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. Those other articles may simply have not had their inappropriate content addressed yet, or may have circumstances unique to those articles. Sources do not need to be in English; it helps, but is not required. Sources only need to be publicly available reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:47, 23 December 2020 review of submission by Germenfer

Hello, I vectorised the flags of several FIAV Associations and I organised them in a table. I then published it in the FIAV Article, but it got removed with the following reason: "against image rules". I guess that some of the flags I vectorised are protected by copyright, but I could not find hich ones are and which ones aren't. I thus published the table without the flags. I request help in order to see how to solve this issue I'm having.

Regards. Germenfer (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:52, 23 December 2020 review of submission by 37.111.217.8

37.111.217.8 (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 24

09:24:41, 24 December 2020 review of draft by Mmmm1362

Can a professional editor create an information box for my article?

Mmmm1362 (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you also posted this on my talk page, I respond here: I'm not comfortable helping to build an article that I feel is a promotional vanity piece. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:53, 24 December 2020 review of submission by Thisisdevrishi

Thisisdevrishi (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:25, 24 December 2020 review of draft by EHildy

1) Reviewer, Robert McClenon, seems to think citations to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database are insufficient. Yet the Internet Speculative Fiction Database has been cited myriad times in Wikipedia with other science fiction authors and artists (that's how I learned about it). I could list many, many examples. ISFDB references actual, extant hard-copies of publications and magazines. It doesn't get much more empirical than that. Must I bring in all the paper hard copies and place them on Mr. McClennon's desk? Because that would probably be a real headache for both of us. Seriously though, if a previously used, proven citation source of Wikipedia ITSELF isn't sufficient, then what would be a sufficient reference in this context? What else would satisfy you? 2) Disambiguation page has been altered to say "Terry Lee (author)." This is incorrect. It should say, "Terry Lee (artist)." How do I fix that? EHildy (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed on www.isfdb.org does not confer any notability whatsoever. You need to demonstrate that the subject meets one of our relevant notability guidelines, such as the 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 mere listings. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:34:57, 24 December 2020 review of submission by Edgaras1458

Edgaras1458 (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:38, 24 December 2020 review of submission by Edgaras1458

Edgaras1458 (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected it had zero independent sources and no indication that the topic was notable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:41:06, 24 December 2020 review of draft by Digital World space


I had add refrence as wikipedia told me to add refrence and I added refrence. Is now my wikipedia draft will pass or not


Digital World space (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft contains zero reliable sources to indicate that the subject is notable. --Kinu t/c 17:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:52:20, 24 December 2020 review of submission by CesareBrizio

 Courtesy link: Draft:Edwin_Foresman_Schoch

When I still wasn't autoconfirmed, I submitted another draft (Draft:Edwin Foresman Schoch) via the "articles for creation" process.

I recently repeated the submission after improving the draft, and now Draft:Edwin Foresman Schoch is pending review.

Today, another draft of mine was accepted, and I learned that now I'm autoconfirmed and I can create the articles by myself.

Is there a way for me to revoke my submission for review of the draft about Edwin F. Schoch, so that I can get back in control of that draft and bypass the "articles for creation" process?

Thank you for your advice!

CesareBrizio (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CesareBrizio: You can technically skip the submission process by moving the draft to article space and then removing the AfC notices, as well as activating the categories, however, I would not recommend it at this point. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Thank you very much. I'll wait for the outcome of the AfC process. Merry Christmas! CesareBrizio (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CesareBrizio: Merry Christmas also for you. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CesareBrizio: While technically an autoconfirmed user can create articles in live space, I don't recommend that for new editors. The chief issues that new editors have is with identifying reliable sources and establishing that our notability guidelines are met. Understanding these things typically requires a little experience. If you go through the AFC process and the article is moved to live space, it will be far likelier to survive. If a new editor builds in live space, their work can quickly draw the attention of other editors, who may nominate it for deletion. If it is deleted, it will be more difficult to convince the community that a new article about the same subject in in better shape than the previous version, and the stigma of a prior deletion could result in a speedier deletion. Regards and Merry Christmas. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Many thanks for your insightful comments. In fact, my only article was published via AFC, and I will definitely wait for the review of my draft about Edwin F. Schoch within the AFC process. Best, CesareBrizio (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:39, 24 December 2020 review of draft by HurricaneTracker495

After 2 weeks, why can't we put it in mainspace for now, add sources later? This was a big snowstorm and we can always use {{Cn}} if needed. Hurricane Tracker 495 22:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One could also argue that since it's already over, there's no longer a hurry to add it to mainspace. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, Cyphoidbomb do you think its necessary to have or should be merged back/WP: MFDed? --Hurricane Tracker 495 22:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:31:30, 24 December 2020 review of submission by Edgaras1458

Edgaras1458 (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:35:25, 24 December 2020 review of submission by Neoknght

It was said that this is a blatant promotion. I am attempting to state the company and its quotes as well as products without sounding advertising similar to that of PepsiCo. Please provide feedback on where you thought it was blatant promotion and I will modify it.

Neoknght (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neoknght, in my opinion, your draft is an advertisement for a run-of-the-mill small business that does not come anywhere near meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies. You must provide much better references. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:58:01, 24 December 2020 review of submission by Neoknght

Many changes made to remove possible content that violated the original rejection. Neoknght (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neoknght, this still sounds promotional, you're lucky the draft wasn't speedy deleted from the start. Regardless of those issues, I am doubtful this company is notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia, articles need to summarise from multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources. Dylsss(talk contribs) 00:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

03:32:32, 25 December 2020 review of draft by Mmmm1362

Could you publish my article on this Christmas day?

Mmmm1362 (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:16, 25 December 2020 review of submission by 103.105.236.121

103.105.236.121 (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:09:17, 25 December 2020 review of draft by Diamond qwerty

Its almost more than 1 month. I am trying to publish this draft but unable to do this. Please help me what can i do to publish this draft. I think there is some misunderstanding form your end, I am not a paid editor. I am very much inspired with this person so i like to publish it. Please help me out from this. Diamond qwerty (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond qwerty (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:25:19, 25 December 2020 review of draft by Mmmm1362

Can anyone complete the infobox of my article?

Mmmm1362 (talk) 07:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:42, 25 December 2020 review of submission by Edgaras1458

Edgaras1458 (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:45:26, 25 December 2020 review of submission by Rajaneesh.R.Nayak

Rajaneesh.R.Nayak (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Rajaneesh.R.Nayak: You didn't ask a question. This submission is unverified. Wikipedia is not a source for WIkipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:18, 25 December 2020 review of draft by Balwinderbatra7

See the above page. It has enough cites, sources and I have no direct or indirect relation with Onkar. I live in Jammu, where he resides and I am writing about him because he deserves to be in Wikipedia. The article is not an advertisement from any end. It's totally neutral and I have used sources not the own created source of the subject. The news sources I used are totally neutral.

Balwinderbatra7 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:17:48, 25 December 2020 review of submission by MercuryRising451


absurd assertion... there is no arricle on triggo at all in English. I am trying to add one. why are you concoting such an absurd notion? thsi is not an advert. just basic informantion 10% of what already exists on the PL wikipedia. if you think it is an advert, go ahead and write a translation from wikipedia pl

MercuryRising451 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


we are trying to create an direct ENGLISH transation of article from Polish wikipedia on triggo. We just started and a user acting in a pathological fashion User:Theroadislong is blocking those attampts for no valid reason. the article is intended to be a DIRECT TRANSALTION of an existing article in PL wikipedia. And that user is blocking it and hurling insane accusations of it being and ad.... not only that this person is not creating an article that is missing but that person is actively blocking an article to match the one in PL wikipedia and that exist for other vehicles of the sort.

MercuryRising451 (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MercuryRising451: In order for an article to pass the Articles for Creation process at the English Wikipedia, you have to demonstrate that the subject meets one of our notability guidelines. In this case, the General Notability Guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" means that it has received in-depth coverage, i.e. not passing mentions. "Reliable sources" means sources that meet our reliable sourcing guidelines, which generally speaking means things like major newspapers, major magazines, books published by major publishers, etc. "Independent of the subject" means that the subject, or companies related to the subject, or people who are related to the subject, do not do anything to establish notability. So an article about a vehicle, where the only reference is to the vehicle's corporate website, does nothing to establish notability.
Unfortunately, just because there is an article at the Polish Wikipedia doesn't mean that an article is guaranteed at the English Wikipedia. Each community has its own rules. Sorry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


one of the users that initially contested it alrady provided links to major newspapers warranting inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by MercuryRising451 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean the article is ready for live space. If you want to move the article forward, you'll need to figure out where those references go, and address the issues raised of the article sounding like an advertisement. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:56:40, 25 December 2020 review of draft by Silvia Dalle Montagne

This is my first contribution, I'm just trying to learn. I see you are suggesting to tweak the content so that it sounds less a resume but I wonder where I should focus, if in the description of the person as a musician or cutting out the less relevant information. I just don't want to risk to cut too much and be less complete. Many thanks

Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 26

00:02:59, 26 December 2020 review of submission by MercuryRising451


just trying to find out what I can do to get this first version published as is so that I can have more motivation to work on it more and on other articles.

MercuryRising451 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered a few sections above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:45:46, 26 December 2020 review of submission by Emmaisa123

Emmaisa123 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:45:46, 26 December 2020 review of submission by Emmaisa123


@Emmaisa123: You didn't ask a question. The draft was rejected because you didn't include any references at all. You need to provide references that establish notability. See our General Notability Guideline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:39:45, 26 December 2020 review of draft by Shivsa008

Help me fixing the draft article in correct form Draft:FC Kolhapur City

Shivsa008 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:59:06, 26 December 2020 review of draft by Vaninnature

I need some help with this article, because its my first one and also because i cant see anymore whats wrong with it. I corrected it so many times but it seems to be still wrong. thank you so much in advance! best wishes Vaninnature Vaninnature (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Vaninnature (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:14:19, 26 December 2020 review of submission by WikiEditorNumber9

WikiEditorNumber9 (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]



Greetings

I would like to know why this topic has not been accepted. It is a growing business, and I do not have any relations to it. I am writing about it to spread awareness of their Sustainable Investing methods which would benefit the community.


Kind Regards Rohan Lakhiani

WikiEditorNumber9 The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It was rejected because this company does not seem to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. "Growing" and "startup" are usually tipoffs that a company does not yet merit a Wikipedia article. Spreading awareness is a form of promotion and not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be curious to know how you came to write about this company if you have no connection to it, as it is the only topic you have edited about. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:42:03, 26 December 2020 review of submission by Tvdoormat

Really struggling to get my page publish no matter how many sources I publish such as BBC, Irish times etc. Not sure what else I can do so any guidance would be really appreciated. Tvdoormat (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Ireland's Future. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:41, 26 December 2020 review of submission by Shkupi Kumanova 1234

Shkupi Kumanova 1234 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:37:50, 26 December 2020 review of draft by CCWriter2236

Time it will take for another review? It says 3 months but I believe it has been close to that.

CCWriter2236 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CCWriter2236. It will take however long it takes. At this level of backlog, the categories are fairly coarse. I believe the 3 month bucket really means more than 3 months but less than 4 months. The draft waiting longest has been in the pool since 29 August. Yours has been in the pool since 29 September. That suggests you have another month to wait. If you're interested in improving the encyclopedia, there are many things you can do to help in the meantime. See the Wikipedia:Task Center. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:16, 26 December 2020 review of submission by Thesireofplebs

Thesireofplebs (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] 


What do I have to do in order to have Wikipedia allow my site to be referenced on its website. I built this website myself and am wondering why I can't have an article on Wikipedia about my personal web project called www.thecentralbanks.com.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesireofplebs (talk • contribs) 22:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thesireofplebs Wikipedia is not interested in what you want to say about your own website. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a website, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website. If no one has chosen on their own to write about your website, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please also review conflict of interest and promotion. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Thesireofplebs: Wait until it meets either the criteria out lined in WP:Notability or the criteria in WP:Notability (web), then wait for someone else to create a Wikipedia page on their own, without any help, input, prodding, or "suggestion" from you that it might be a good idea to do so. Or, alternatively, wait until your web site meets one of the "notability" criteria, read and follow the directions in WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Paid-contribution disclosure, draft and article in as neutral a tone as possible and cite reliable, independent sources to show that your web site has received "significant coverage." Press releases and coverage based on what you say don't "count" when reviewers assess a topic's notability.
In short, if your web site becomes the next Google, someone will create a page about it eventually. If not, oh well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 27

00:19:52, 27 December 2020 review of submission by Textor Alector

Inclusion of 2 new independent reliable sources that comment on the article subject directly.

Textor Alector (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Textor Alector::
2 new?  Yes
independent? question mark Maybe
reliable?  No
Random blogs do not meet WP:UGC. And I can't even tell what devex.com does, but it is not a reliable mainstream news source or similar that has a clear editorial oversight. I don't know what one has to do to have a profile posted there, but their "advertise with us" button makes me think it's not that hard to do. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:38:59, 27 December 2020 review of draft by Lindonlulgjuraj


Hello, Why am I getting this message on my wikipedia submission that states "Warning: This page should probably be moved to the Draft namespace." What do I do or call the draft?

Lindonlulgjuraj (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:52, 27 December 2020 review of draft by Shivsa008

Can anyone tell me which club come under notability in Indian football

Shivsa008 (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shivsa008: See WP:NFOOTY and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:38:49, 27 December 2020 review of submission by Montazeris31

Montazeris31 (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


07:45:47, 27 December 2020 review of submission by Lindonlulgjuraj

Hello, My page for Lindon (Rapper) was declined by you. I am just wondering what citations are not valid? What exactly do I have to change or remove for this page to be accepted? Thank you Lindonlulgjuraj (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lindonlulgjuraj (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lindonlulgjuraj Please review the autobiography poklicy as to why writing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. To succeed, in essence you need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you. Those sources must show how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. The sources you have offered are not significant coverage of you. Such coverage does not include brief mentions, interviews with you, or other primary sources. See Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:16, 27 December 2020 review of draft by Blue Bunting


My first draft was rejected due to lack of references in The Times or The Telegraph. I have added three references to brief articles in these two newspapers. I have also added references to 10 other newspaper articles about Taunton Elliott Viney DSO. I would like advice on whether these added references will be sufficient. Blue Bunting (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bunting (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:46:59, 27 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Barejsha02


Dear editors,

I have corrected almost all the comments I could.

But

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject

This remark is incomprehensible to me. How can I correct the article to bring it into an encyclopedic format? When writing, I was guided by articles about other Russian scientists in Wikipedia, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhores_Alferov

As to independent, reliable, published sources, they are given in article section "Publications about L. A. Sosnovskiy"

If possible, give the citation numbers from Google Scholar or equivalent

If possible, please give me a link to an article by some scientist on Wikipedia, so that I can see with an example how to do it correctly.

Sincerely

Barejsha02 (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:43, 27 December 2020 review of submission by 50ironclad50

I've elaborated more information on the company as well as adding some references to news articles other than in the Japanese language. It seems it has been occasionally covered by news outlets for past two to three years especially by those specialised in the display industry when it let out press releases or updates on the production schedule, for its unique manufacturing technology and the prospect of an OLED monitor. It certainly receives enduring attention and has notability at least in the OLED market. 50ironclad50 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50ironclad50 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Product announcements and other routine business announcements do not establish notability. Please review WP:ORG, the notability criteria for businesses. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Thank you for the quick reply :) Actually this is not a draft I initiated so if I had known a rejected one has no chance for being re-considered I would've not contributed it sporadically spending my time. That's my bad. As for the issue regarding notablity, I don't believe the scope of the coverage of this company has been limited to routine press releases or brief mentions. The establishment of this company was covered with a detailed analysis in a Reuters piece and multiple news sources have been following this company for the reasons I mentioned. So the criteria for notablity seem nebulous to me in this case. Is there a guideline for submitting another draft on a subject that has been rejected? I'm not pledging on starting a new one but I might sometime if that was possible. 50ironclad50 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
50ironclad50 I believe that in general it is okay to wait six months or more before submitting a draft on a previously rejected subject. If you have appropriate sources now, you should bring that up with the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
50ironclad50 I have added the submit template for you, feel free to submit and I'll leave it for another reviewer to take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:21:50, 27 December 2020 review of draft by Bztwiki

Hi,

I'm asking help because I don't understand what modifications are asked for the page "Scalable Screen Font". I also can't see any add comment nor reply comment links, and I find it difficult to keep in touch with the moderators. One of them added some comments on the talk page, but sadly without direct links I could use. He suggested to use this interface, that's why I'm asking here. Sorry I make trouble for you. Bztwiki (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bztwiki You've been told repeatedly that Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified and notability established. Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are edited just like any other page. There is no "add comment", just "edit". 331dot (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

01:11:46, 28 December 2020 review of submission by TechNerd22

Hi, I'm just wondering if it's possible to add references to infoboxes? There is some info in the infobox that is not mentioned in the rest of the article, so I want to add references to the infobox. I've tried <ref>, but it doesn't work. TechNerd22 (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=996676340"