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 Furnick.jonas (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 30 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 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]
331dot Theroadislong Got it. Appreciate your help! 50ironclad50 (talk) 09:30, 28 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]

The <ref> tag can be used in infoboxes. However, I do feel the need to point out WP:NSCHOOL, which suggests that the subject of this article may not be notable enough to warrant an article. The references provided are routine coverage about construction, which likely does not support notability. --Kinu t/c 01:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:30:52, 28 December 2020 review of submission by 188.120.116.9


188.120.116.9 (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offer no independent reliable sources with coverage of the subject. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:09, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Iamjhaalok

Hello my article is declined because the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject . I need some help with this article, because its my first one and also because i can not see whats wrong with it.

Iamjhaalok (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iamjhaalok What was wrong with it was that you did not show with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. You had offered no sources other than the company website. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself, but in what third parties say about it without any involvement from the subject. Please see Your First Article; you may also wish to use the new user tutorial if possible. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia; you might wish to gain experience by first spending time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for the process and what is expected of article content. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:37, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Culturesorbet

Did some tweaks to the draft, hopefully, it sounds less marketing/advertorial and more factual. Culturesorbet (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Culturesorbet Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something like a company A Wikipedia article about a company must only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The reviewer rejected the draft because the chances of that occurring here seem to be low.
If you are associated with this company, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:13:05, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Sitaramradheshyam

ISKCON Nepal is a real Hindu temple in Nepal which is located in Kathamandu. It's saying the subject is not notable but it's wrong. ISKCON Nepal is very famous across Nepal.Sitaramradheshyam (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaramradheshyam (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitaramradheshyam Your reviewers want to know how/why it is independently notable of ISKCON, which already has a Wikipedia article. They suggest that you incorporate your work into a section in that article. If you want this to be a standalone article, you will need to give your reviewers good reasons why. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:03:26, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Atharvamishra1


Atharvamishra1 (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User indefinitely blocked for spam. --Kinu t/c 11:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:41, 28 December 2020 review of submission by X12visuals

Please kindly help to advice me on areas how to improve this article so it can be published on wikipedia page or help me to improve on the article. Thanks

X12visuals (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:01:29, 28 December 2020 review of submission by HiqmahempireHiqmahempire

14:01:29, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Hiqmahempire

I'm a poet and one of my purpose of being here is to be publishing my poems for Wikipedia readers to be benefiting from it. I've tried and make research if Wikipedia supports that but I will appreciate it if I can get the right answer here. If Wikipedia supports Poems, what are the guidelines to follow. Thanks. Hiqmahempire (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiqmahempire Wikipedia is not a web host, it doesn't publish poetry or any original works. Theroadislong (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiqmahempire What Theroadislong said is correct. That said, "inside humor" that is about Wikipedia can sometimes have a place outside of the "encyclopedia" part of Wikipedia. One seasonal example is Wikipedia:The Night Before Wikimas, which is a Wiki-centric riff of the old Christmas classic A Visit from St. Nicholas. Again, just to re-emphasize, this is NOT part of the encyclopedia itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:24, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Toon history


Toon history (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated, this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. --Kinu t/c 05:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:43:46, 28 December 2020 review of draft by Xander710


Hi, I am writing a wikipedia page about aerockets created by 2 close friends of me, for the sources I have their website their youtube channel and their google business page, but I assume that the last 2 are not a good type of source? Xander710 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xander710 None of those are acceptable. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Sources associated with the company are not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xander710: I think that it's a bit of a stretch to call a pair of model rocket enthusiasts an "aerospace manufacturer". Further, there has to be a hundred thousand model rocket enthusiasts on the planet, and we can't have an article about every one of them. Only when the subjects become notable per our General Notability Guideline would we consider publishing an article about them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:01:50, 28 December 2020 review of submission by SEOBD


SEOBD (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was promotional in nature. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:47, 28 December 2020 review of submission by Adamreinman


I made a lot of improvements. I would like to know if there are additional change that I need to make. Or, is it ok to submit for publicaiton? Thank you.


Adamreinman (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem may be that the topic you are writing about is not "notable" as Wikipedia uses the term. Please read WP:Your first article for help in that area. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

04:53:41, 29 December 2020 review of submission by ChrisMat2020

Mohamed Mrad is a Tunisian actor. He played important roles in many films and TV series . My article is translated from French Wikipedia. There are Arabic and French wikipedia and I cited several notable sources like Kapitalis, Mosaïque FM, Africultures, Tuniscope, Assabah News and others. You can consult administrators or users from Tunisia. ChrisMat2020 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is also at The Teahouse. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:54:21, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Stardust8543


Not looking for a re-review. Would like this draft permanently deleted.

Stardust8543 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:26:01, 29 December 2020 review of submission by MonaliB


I am writing in reference to the current rejection with the MR. IQBAL QAZI draft. Mr. IQBAL QAZI is one of the popular entrepreneur in NAVI MUMBAI, and richest among the Muslim community. Thousands of people know him because of his good will. Today, hundreds of people have jobs under his companies.

Here is list of companies websites where he is director/owner http://www.oceangate.in/index.html (CFS-container fright station. Near JNPT PORT) http://takecarelogisticpark.com/ (CFS-container fright station. Near JNPT PORT) https://www.takecareglobalservices.com/ (ISO TANK DEPOT) https://www.iqrasteelandtubespvtltd.com/ (STEEL TRADER) https://pesenglishschoolandjuniorcollege.com/ (He is president at Panvel Education Society(PES). under pes there is three education campus as following places- Panvel City, Taloje, Panvel and Barapada,Panvel )

He is involve in many charitable events unfortunately, I didn't find references on internet.

In year 2019 flood in Maharashtra(Kolhapur, Satara and Sangli) He was help flood victim by providing them emergency fund and supplies.

In April 2020. due to the covid19 lockdown people are suffering. He helps needy people by providing them fund and food.

He helps poor and needy students by providing them scholarships.

This are the number of reasons why I wrote this article. Previously when I summited this draft I thought Wikipedia accept this draft. unfortunately, I face rejection.

Respected Wikipedia reviewer, Can you please help me to improve this draft and I am also appreciate if you confirm that following draft(Iqbal Qazi) fit the criteria for Wikipedia.





MonaliB (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:18:09, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Writerforfuture14

Hello there,

I would like to ask for a re-view to this article. A friend of mine tried to creat a wikipedia article about VAVA Eyewear, but we didn't put any references to the text that we wrote.

I did some research and found some newspappers and magazines that verify the text that he wrote before.

I hope everything is in order right now.

All the best. Writerforfuture14 (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Writerforfuture14: Is you friend the same person that wrote https://www.eye-book.com/2020/10/a-chat-with-pedro-da-silva/? If he is, that article is unsiutable for Wikipedia. Interviews and other primary sources are of limited use. The given text is overly promotional. If your friend isn't the person that wrote that, we have a real problem. Either way, based on the source text, the (deleted) revisions are not acceptable for Wikipedia. That does not mean an article cannot be created, however, any new attempt will have to start from a blank page. There are steps for article attempts avaliable here, here or here. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:32:18, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Tech306

Block evasion by promotion-only editor ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I submitted the article below from a different page (which now is deleted since the name North Star Systems Inc. didn’t meet Wikipedia requirements) and 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.

Your help is appreciated.

Sincerely, Tech306

[draft removed; as you were advised last time, please don't add any article text or references to this page]

Tech306 (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was located at Draft:North Star Systems Inc.. Any administrator can see it (I'm not one, but there are several admins who frequent this page). The best person to ask about a deleted page, if you don't get responses here, is the administrator who performed the deletion. You'll see who that is if you click on the red link to the deleted draft. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:45:54, 29 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Samirkhan.0



Samirkhan.0 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samirkhan.0: You didn't ask a question. The current draft is unferifyable, and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. If this draft is about you, please have a look at WP:AUTOBIO. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:23, 29 December 2020 review of submission by Siriandstuffs

I want this page to be re reviewed ~ the page was last reviewed 11 months back ~ the topic has done more credible and notable work in the meantime ~ the article has been updated thoroughly Siriandstuffs (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: You rejected in January. Do you have an opinion on the current draft? (changes since January 28th, 17:05). Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Siriandstuffs: No "please"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:28:38, 29 December 2020 review of draft by MI Americas


I would like to save changes I've made to a draft page, but I do not get the option to save changes, I only get the option to publish changes, which I am not ready to do yet. MI Americas (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MI Americas "Publish changes" should be interpreted to simply mean "save changes", it does not mean "publish this to the encyclopedia ". It used to say save changes, but legal reasons necessitated a change. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If "MI Americas" is the name of an organization, you will need to change your username and review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

how do I change my username?

MI Americas You may visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS to make a username change request. You will also need to read conflict of interest and paid editing and make the required disclosures. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

00:26:55, 30 December 2020 review of draft by Mvb71


I'm having trouble identifying what I think must be NPV issues on my article for Burp Suite Draft:Burp Suite. This software was requested as being needed Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences due to the frequent use of this in Application Security teaching and professional use, and I believe I have established its notability per recommended methods for establishing through authoritative and peer-reviewed sources so I don't believe that is the issue. I've modeled my page after existing proprietary software such as Nessus Nessus (software) to ensure I'm approaching this in a community approved approach to creating an article for a commercial product; I wanted to make sure it wasn't interpreted as marketing and has gone through several revs to address this. The last reviewer declined the pages without comment after I had addressed issues called in prior critiques; those comments are critical to changing my perspective to address what I'm not accounting for. Without guidance from the reviewers, I can't fix what I don't see as needing fixing, either NPV or notability, or maybe something else I'm missing. I'm not a very experienced Wiki author, but I am a cybersecurity professional of over a decade of experience, so I'm confused as to where I'm not addressing concerns. Somewhere I'm not addressing the need for ensuring enough information to show notability and describe its use but not do so in a way that appears to be marketing. Please help me understand what needs changing to address concerns with the article. Mvb71 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Mvb71 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:32:37, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Zgover


Please clarify which sources you deem to not be notable? I have made all corrections requested by previous reviewer Theroadislong and they no longer had any recommendations. However the recent rejection is vague.

zgover (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zgover. It is irrelevant whether or not a publication is notable. What is important is whether a source demonstrates the subject's notability. That is done by sources that are independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the topic. All of the sources in the draft fail that multi-part test. Throw away non-independent sources: Caringo, businesswire, AustinVentures, and trade journals (SearchStorage, CRN, and Enterprise Systems Journal). Throw away sources that are not reliable (Owler). Throw away sources that do not contain significant coverage (Bloomberg and The Austin-American Statesman). There's nothing left. That's pretty much what one would expect of a privately held startup; they're very rarely notable, and no amount of editing can fix that. That's why there's no option to resubmit the draft, and why volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:52:33, 30 December 2020 review of draft by Sandeep2136


Sandeep2136 (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:35:34, 30 December 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Moggo99


Hi there I am a first time page creator and i am trying to create a page for my brother who is a respected Australian Indigenous Scientist... He is an Associate Professor at Canberra University. Via Google Scholar his articles have been cited 180 times and has won a number of prestigious awards in Science... I am interested in your feedback.. Thank you Tim (brother of Brad).


Moggo99 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moggo99 You currently have one uncited paragraph about your brother; that is a long way from being an acceptable Wikipedia article. Successfully writing a new article(not a mere "page") is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. If you dive right in without any experience in editing existing articles, or any knowledge, your chances of success are low. It's even harder to write one with a conflict of interest. I would suggest using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia, and reading Your First Article before continuing. I would also suggest spending time(months) editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. These things will give you experience and knowledge that will help you create a new article.
Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone; it is for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, in this case, a scientist- showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable academic or scientist. If you just want to tell the world about your brother, you should use social media or other outlet where that is permitted and may have less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:50:54, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Martymcflys

I feel like Sahara Marie is notable. I Think the page should be up and live for other fans and editors to make the necessary edits it needs. But this said to ask for advise so here I am. Martymcflys (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martymcflys The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If this person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable model, you have not shown that with the sources you have offered- which are not independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:14, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya


why is "Hamro Patro" another digital calendar which started later than us had got the place in wiki whereas being the first digital lunar calendar based on Bikram Sambat, our Nepali Patro is not getting its place in wiki. what is the document that is needed so that we also can appear in the wiki as them. if we look at alexa ranking also we have almost the same rating. plese do advise!!! dryair 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sudan Bhattarai Upadhaya Alexa rankings are not a concern of Wikipedia. A subject merits a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Because of this, not every subject merits an article, even within the same field. That your competitors merit an article does not automatically mean your app does as well, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:13, 30 December 2020 review of draft by Phualy28


I've created person profile at [[1]], would like to know what else can i do to improve the draft

Phualy28 (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:06:49, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Furnick.jonas


Furnick.jonas (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:47:38, 30 December 2020 review of submission by Furnick.jonas


Furnick.jonas (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=997185328"