Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
Talk
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help
desk
Backlog
drives

Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


April 3[edit]

Request on 00:49:02, 3 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Bince construction[edit]



Bince construction (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

03:20, 3 April 2020 Seraphimblade talk contribs deleted page User:Bince construction/sandbox (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (thank) Nothing more to do here, since the page was deleted and the user blocked for Username policy violations. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

09:03:04, 3 April 2020 review of draft by Irenemoresa[edit]


Could you please help me identify the sentences or paragraphs where do you see missing footnotes at the Chelo´s Alvarez-Stehle draft? I thought I had it right. Please, I need help to understand my error. Thank you in advance.

Irenemoresa (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of sentences in the career section with no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

14:48:14, 3 April 2020 review of draft by Boxing8829[edit]


Boxing8829 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

hello , I would like to know what changes are needed so this page can be posted. thanks for your time!

User:Boxing8829 - An article on Anthony Martinez (boxer) was deleted two years ago after a deletion discussion. You will need to show that he has accomplished more as a boxer in the past two years (or that the deletion discussion should be reviewed). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

15:19:07, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Roger amanna[edit]


Roger amanna (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC) I need more advice on what needs to be added to have this article accepted. Any help would be appreciated.

Roger amanna Your draft has been rejected the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. You have zero independent reliable sources, they are an absolute prerequisite for a successful submission. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

16:57:27, 3 April 2020 review of submission by 109.146.54.212[edit]


Hi. Please could I have help with editing the page I created as I have edited it three times. It is not clear why it has been declined. Is it to do with the references? Not enough information about the topic?

109.146.54.212 (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

If the only source you can find is a page on the subject's agents website, you have not shown that he is Notable. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

17:53:08, 3 April 2020 review of submission by 109.146.54.212[edit]

Please could you have a look at my draft as I have added a bit more and included a new reference which I hope meets your standards 109.146.54.212 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry no, they are both primary sources and Linked in isn't reliable either, you need multiple in-depth coverage in magazines, newspapers etc. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

18:27:42, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Rm 1309[edit]

Hello,

I'd really like to learn from you the basic changes that I could make to the draft: Agarwal Movers Group in order to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I've tried talking to wiki volunteers over the IRC and I did do the changes required. I'm still confused. Maybe help me out? Rm 1309 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rm 1309, your article was rejected because it was written as an advertisement. It's hard to help you with such a vague request as there are a lot of things to do on Wikipedia (and policies to follow). If you want some places to start, I would recommend looking at all of the links that editors in the past have posted on your talk page. Let me know if you have some more specific questions that I can answer. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

19:12:08, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Mauliknayakofficial[edit]


Mauliknayakofficial (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


19:47:02, 3 April 2020 review of submission by Zoyashi[edit]


I'm just trying to write a appreciative summary of a book I really enjoy. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Zoyashi (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Zoyashi: Wikipedia does not publish essays or any other material that is original research. Unfortunately, there is no guidance we can provide for the article in its current state. You would have to start again from scratch and use reliable sources for most everything. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


I am trying to write an appreciative summary of a book I really enjoy. Any advice would be welcome!

Zoyashi (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Zoyashi Wikipedia is not for merely publishing book summaries. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable book). A plot summary is only a small part of such an article, and should not provide every detail. Any article about a book should focus on what independent sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

19:50:39, 3 April 2020 review of draft by Eforgacs[edit]


I would like to go over this draft to make sure that it meets the submission criteria. The first time I tried submitting, it got rejected because it was missing sources. Most of the sources are in Korean, but I was able to find a source that was in English (not sure if the language of the source matters), and I added that. I also removed some unsourced material as well. Please let me know what changes are necessary. Thanks.

Eforgacs (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to say sources do not have to be in English. It helps, but it's not required. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

20:19:55, 3 April 2020 review of submission by 2606:6000:CC03:8300:4D8C:3972:B846:5E7E[edit]


This was modeled directly off the entries of similar behavioral scientists (Nir Eyal, Daniel Kahneman, etc.) and is the first of an effort to add more behavioral scientists to WP. We're trying to get one right before using that as a template for the others...rather than simply say "its not right", could you help edit it into being correct so that we have a template to use for the rest of the behavioral science community?

2606:6000:CC03:8300:4D8C:3972:B846:5E7E (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The draft reads like a resume or CV or list of accomplishments, and not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, that of a notable academic). It shouldn't just merely tell what the subject has done- that is just advertising(as noted by a commenter on the draft). If you patterned this on other similar articles, those articles are likely in error as well. Who is "we"?("so that we have a template") 331dot (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
It's unfortunate because it's clear that you spent a lot of time on this article, but as 331dot explains above, it's more important to write the article based on what others have written about him, rather than basing it on primary sources, which is what Wikipedia calls the interviews, speeches and podcasts that make up many of the listed sources you used. I just did a Google search and couldn't find very much independent coverage about him. I was also unable to find significant independent media coverage of his book. Sorry to have to be the bearer of bad news. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

April 4[edit]

04:43:19, 4 April 2020 review of submission by Ahmadarana[edit]


Ahmadarana (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ahmadarana, if you're asking why your article was rejected as not notable, please provide three sources you think prove that the company complies with WP:GNG. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

07:31:25, 4 April 2020 review of submission by Shahnawaz rules[edit]

Here is the Draft link https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Draft:Lahore_Motorway_City

Dear members,

I am trying to create a simple article on Wikipedia . i followed the Wikipedia standards for writing an article but still declined again and again .

I provide 16 genuine references for the authenticity including the official website of the main domain of the article but still my article get declined due to unreliable references .

I spend a lot of time on it but all in vain .


Shahnawaz rules (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As already advised, Facebook is not a suitable source. Real Estate listings are not sources. Advertisements for the property are not acceptable sources.Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

09:07:18, 4 April 2020 review of draft by 142.167.9.37[edit]


I guess I would like help to explain it to me in a very simple way why my submission (John Trent (director)) has been rejected. I have included multiple links from multiple sources, and the subject is certainly more prolific than a lot of other filmmakers that already have articles included, not to mention that the submission itself indicates many films Mr. Trent has made that are already in wikipedia but which still don't have a link to the director. Wouldn't it make more sense to add the director of those films? (Unless I'm to assume that you have a space limit on how many articles you can include..?)

The first time this submission was rejected, I rewrote it to the specifications that were provided by your volunteer staff of "editors." If the information I was given by them (it was looked over by at least one of them) was wrong, that's not something that should be held against me, particularly as it was in a chatroom full of your representatives who are supposed to resemble some sort of ad-hoc help desk.

The only thing I'm left to assume is that the person who rejected it didn't read any of the references, as they (the refs) have indicated why the subject is an important one in the canadian film industry, which is certainly important in itself for an english language encyclopaedia. If the article is reviewed again and rejected for the references, I'm assuming that some transparency will then be applied and wikipedia will soon start deleting the thousands of poorly- (or just plain not at all) referenced articles that are current on the site..?

If it helps, I'm sure I could dig up numerous filmmakers for you whose output is less significant than Mr. Trent's but still have articles of their own so that you can delete them for not being "significant". Please let me know.

(Please forgive if I worded this less than politely. It's not my intention to insult or offend, just to get a straight answer, since your system of approval and rejection appears so opaque to the point that it seems like it's largely up to the editor rather than the content.)

Thank you in advance for any help you can provide here. 142.167.9.37 (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As stated in the decline message, the sources you have offered do not show how Trent meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional. You have only cited the existence of Trent and his work; Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not just mentions) state about a subject. IMDB is not considered an acceptable source as it is user-editable.
As to other articles, this is a volunteer project, and we can only address what is pointed out to us. It is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. If you'd like to help out, feel free to mark some of these other problematic articles you are aware of for deletion. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

13:33:11, 4 April 2020 review of submission by Queenofboston[edit]


Queenofboston (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC) I am requesting a review after having added references to coverage of EU Scream activities by Politico. I have primary and secondary sources talking about EU Scream, including in the Financial Times, Brussels Times, Forbes, Politico and by Spiegel journalists. These are all top quality sources talking about EU Scream and about what EU Scream does. This is more than matching the coverage I see on numerous Wikipedia pages. I feel that the rejections are unfair, I am sure that there is a degree of discretion and that reviewers have reasons to reject but with 5 top papers sources, what more can be expected.

The sources are not primarily about EU Scream, as noted by the reviewers. If you notice other articles similar to yours, feel free to point them out so they can be addressed. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, and we can only act on what we know about. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

15:03:44, 4 April 2020 review of submission by 112.134.176.21[edit]


Please review the article. This is a Sri Lanka based organization which is trying to make a real impact in the community, specially with disadvantaged kids through various programs.

112.134.176.21 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I hope what I assume is your organization is successful in its worthy cause, but you cannot use Wikipedia to tell the world about it. The advice given in the draft by reviewers is correct. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 15:17:39, 4 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Moonwalker909[edit]


I have found an approved article https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Annabel_Dover which is similar in structure of my draft: Renee Pfister I would like to know why my was declines whilst these two examples are very similar

Moonwalker909 (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Moonwalker909 Please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. This is why each article is judged on its own merits, and it is a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason to permit yours; it is likely those other articles are inappropriate as well. That is the case with your example.
Wikipedia articles must do more than merely tell about the subject. They must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

23:04:44, 4 April 2020 review of draft by 24.193.214.238[edit]


Hi! I am trying to add photos to my page and having a terrible time. help! Thank you, Jennifer Cecere 24.193.214.238 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jencecere. I've corrected the image syntax on User:Jencecere/sandbox so that the photo displays. See Help:Pictures for more information.
It's fine to add an image of yourself to your sandbox as a test, or to have one on your user page. Neither of those should be submitted to Articles for Creation for review, because they aren't going to be encyclopedia articles. Writing an autobiography, if that's what you were starting, is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself; I've never seen it end well when people try. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

23:09:23, 4 April 2020 review of submission by GanimeteShabani[edit]


GanimeteShabani (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


23:32:07, 4 April 2020 review of draft by Jtatton[edit]


Hello! I'm currently trying to improve the quality of my draft article on Concurnas from a references perspective before it hits review. There are currently 5 non concurnas.com references in the article (Help:Your_first_article states that a minimum of 3 are required to prove notability): news.efinancialcareers.com, jaxenter.com, waterstechnology.com, infoworld.com and programmez.com. Are these sources considered to be high enough quality? If not which ones should I supplement?


Jtatton (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Declined for the reasons explained on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

April 5[edit]

00:07:04, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Adam Naa[edit]


Adam Naa (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Adam Naa, see the comment I left before (I'm pasting here for transparency): if you're asking why your article was rejected as not notable, please provide three sources you think prove that the company complies with WP:GNG. Sam-2727 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

15:28:19, 5 April 2020 review of draft by Whirly12[edit]


Whirly12 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is my first submission so I'm not familiar with the shorthand and can't seem to find anything that tells me what they mean. My review feedback was "Adv,Bio." Hoping you can point me to a page that will help me understand what those mean. Thanks

I'm guessing they stand for blatant advertising and non notable biography? Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

16:43:12, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Aakashsingh1999[edit]


Can You give me some advice on how can I tackle the problem as I am new to Wikipedia article writing?

The Page is about the Privately Held Company in India which provides many services to the customers and also is currently developing many new products in their R&D, They make students do the development work so students can learn new things. They Conducted like soo many workshops, webinars in different colleges across the country providing students to learn new skills.


Aakashsingh1999 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


16:57:28, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Ara.ahmad.na[edit]


Ara.ahmad.na (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

For the archive: 23:38, 5 April 2020 Dreamy Jazz talk contribs blocked Ara.ahmad.na talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmadarana. Also promotional editing.). Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

16:58:44, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Bojan PLOJ[edit]

You said that I need secundary souce. I have many invited talks (for example at IBM Research, Zurich, at EPFL in Lozana) I was also invited speaker at IBM Unconference 2018 in Zurich. Is this primary or secondary source. Bojan PLOJ (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Talks by you aren't secondary sources (assuming you have a close connection to the subject). Look for review articles or articles by people besides you to include in the article that mention the subject of the article significantly. Also don't state opinion as fact, as you did with the phrase "has many advantages." Sam-2727 (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

17:04:42, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Aakashsingh1999[edit]

May I know what kind of sources I need here? Aakashsingh1999 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Independent and in-depth. Not routine listings or press releases. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

20:07:37, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Mushupechkar[edit]

i want to make article on wikipedia and this official article and when this article will succeed i will help others to make articles and editing this is my first article

Mushupechkar (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Writing about yourself is never recommended and not a good idea. Any article has to follow the Golden Rule. Are you notable? . If you are, then someone will eventually write about you. You shouldn't. -- Alexf(talk) 20:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

20:14:53, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Mushupechkar[edit]


Mushupechkar (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mushupechkar: Assuming this is about User:Mushupechkar/sandbox, please do not write about youself. Please note that an Wikipedia article is not nesessarely desireable. Based on the Birthdate there you might also want to have a look at Advice for younger editors. All things you publish on the internet are pretty much accessible for everyone, and its nearly impossible to get things out of the internet once there in there. Please understand that unlike other websites like Facebook, Instagramm or Twitter, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia (read that article to find out more). If your only purpose is to publish an article about youself, please consider alternative outlets. I see you have been blocked for a week, I suggest you use that time to familarise yourself with the Rules, including, but not limited to WP:5P WP:NOT and WP:V. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

20:24:41, 5 April 2020 review of submission by Dugro[edit]

My article Draft:Anal_torture is pending for review since 2 months. I know even older articles are pending for review, but my article is on an unconventional topic, so I fear it can be overlooked by reviewers. It has all the required citations, so pls review it. Dugro (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dugro, It will be reviewed when someone gets a chance to. Us giving undue weight to review yours now would not be fair to others that have been waiting longer. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

23:54:55, 5 April 2020 review of submission by XA45Y3$[edit]

Hello, i request a re-review because I think the article is helpful for people searching about RMJS. It's easier to find the information they need when seeing all of it on Wikipedia.

Have a great day. XA45Y3$ (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

XA45Y3$ Your draft has been rejected, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved to meet standards. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, even if helpful; Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

April 6[edit]

02:20:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Didgeri[edit]

It is imperative to know that what else apart from credible links could one cite in references. And if WiJungle page is an advert then what would you call these pages - https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Trishneet_Arora https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Lucideus There are tons of such pages available on WiKipedia.

It seems like reviewer has declined the submission with no concrete reason. Highlighting a general reason seems intended.

Didgeri (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Didgeri Please read other stuff exists. It is a poor argument to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If the articles you reference are only sourced to press releases, they too would be inappropriate. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources] with significant coverage say about a subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable business). Press releases and routine announcements are not independent sources, and as such do not establish notability. Coverage by a source must be in depth and that source must have chosen on their own to write about the subject, not just republish a press release. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

17:09:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Didgeri

Hi 331dot, I respect your point and I myself being a volunteer always ensure the guidelines and benchmarks of Wikipedia. Hence while choosing the subject, I did my good amount of research to ensure that references are independent & credible. And that is why I opposed the raised point about article being entirely based on press releases. I kindly request you to go through the article and references once, you would agree that subject has been covered well by credible sources & not just the press releases.

Didgeri (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked through all the sources and they all are pretty much not sufficient for WP:GNG. The substantial ones are interviews, primary sources, press releases and other basically churnalisms and veiled advertisements. The closest sources to acceptable are actually about the person. Even the "Aegis Graham Bell Award" award is just a subdivision of a minor award under Alexander Graham Bell honors and tributes. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

04:12:30, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Chachanna[edit]

I am needing help creating citations to publish my article. My information came from a website and I am looking for the best way to publish without being rejected again. Chachanna (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Chachanna No one can help you create citations. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The only way you can do this is to hope that independent sources take note of the subject you wrote about and choose on their own to write about it themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 08:02:43, 6 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Marcusjp10[edit]


Hi, Why was my article not published. Please tell me how to fix and improve it.

Marcusjp10 (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Marcusjp10 Your draft was essentially a promotional or advertising piece about who I assume is yourself. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. This is an encyclopedia, where a person must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not interested in what any article subject says about itself, only in what others say about it. Please also review the autobiography policy as to why writing about yourself, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you need to essentially forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent sources state; most people cannot do this about themselves. An article about yourself is also not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

11:46:07, 6 April 2020 review of draft by Kathrynwatson[edit]


Kathrynwatson (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)



Hello,

My last reviewer commented that I was being paid to write the article. I used to work for Jasper Hope at Dubai Opera but not anymore. I am not being paid to write this article. I just thought that given his status here in Dubai and internationally he is notable and therefore a wikipedia page should exist for him. There are a number of references in the article illustrating he is notable including ones for some off the awards he has won. Any help you cam offer would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you, Kathryn

Kathrynwatson Interviews with the subject are primary sources and not acceptable for establishing notability. Any person or organization can create an "award" and give it out(the "331dot award for the 100 best editors"), but the giving of the award needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources, not just a press release or brief announcement of the award(especially if by the organization itself)- as the giving of Academy Awards or Tony Awards has. The article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about Mr. Hope. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

11:48:13, 6 April 2020 review of submission by AlejandroLeloirRey[edit]

hallo, I was given some advises on how to change the references and I would like to submit it again, how can I do it? thank you AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

AlejandroLeloirRey Your draft had been rejected, not just declined, meaning there is unfortunately little chance it can be improved to the point where it can be formally a part of the encyclopedia. The person you wrote about does not seem to meet the notability criteria. If that's true, there isn't anything you can do. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
331dot thank you for the info. I was told that since there is a biography of this person written by one of the most important italian writes (Walter Siti, Strega Prize 2013) published by one of the very best Italian editor (Rizzoli Libri) if I used this book as the main reference things would be different and so I did. Anyway, thank you again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
331dot I am sorry if I disturb you but may be I am not ready to give it up, could you please give it a look and tell me what is your impression and what could be changed. There are still a few things I might improve but let me be honest, I gave a look to other gay porn star bios here and most of them have one or two references, in Carlo's Bio I used a very important and reliable book, news from national news papers for the recent facts and articles from AVN and XBiz for porn fact (wikipedia says explicitly that those are good references for porn). only for a few detail about his academic career I used (apart from the book) his institutional page on his university's web stie, which being a universtity web site I consider reliable. I would really appreciate if you could give me an hand.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
AlejandroLeloirRey I cannot read Italian so it is hard for me to evaluate the sources, but they seem to me to be brief mentions or routine announcements, neither of which establish notability; either the definition of a notable actor or a notable professor(though combining the two is certainly interesting). A university profile is not an independent source as they are usually based on what the person told them. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
331dot which sources are you specifically talking about? 90% is based on the book which is Carlo Masi (real name Ruggero Freddi) biography. I didn't use as a source anything that wasn't entirely about Carlo Masi apart from things I used to prove very specific facts about his porn career which was 10 years ago, so you can understand that most of the material is not online anymore. If you believe that those few references are a problem I could remove them and the information I took from them, it is not much. would that make any difference? would you than also recommend me to remove the university web site as a source? thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest that you do both of those things. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

14:24:38, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Saskia Schuldig[edit]


Saskia Schuldig (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


Hi there.

I am creating drafts but not sure why they are declining. I'm providing history to a company as I see that it is not listed on wikipedia, none of the SA service providers in web hosting are.

The previous message I received was that it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia however if I look at the five pillars listed I don't infringe on any of them.

Please can you assist me in submitting a piece that would be considered "according to the purpose of Wikipedia"

Thanks so much

I have rejected your draft, the company is not notable and you are being paid to edit but not disclosing this as you are required to do by the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

15:51:02, 6 April 2020 review of draft by Mischievousgnome[edit]


Hello, I have recently created my first Wikipedia entry on a subject in the area of fundamental physics, specifically a phenomenological model of gravity involving inertia. The entry was rejected apparently within a few hours on the grounds that the references did not show the topic to be sufficiently notable. It is not clear whether the editor bothered to read the article. I made disclosure before submitting the article, and produced it using an account that I had created years ago in order to make a small edit that, to my recollection, has nothing to do with the present submission. I would like to proceed to add references from third parties in order to attempt to satisfy the notability requirement, though I note that at least one other article dealing with similar subject matter falls far short of the standard being applied in this case. (I realize that this is not deemed a valid defense, yet it does not suggest impartiality in the review process.) In the article itself I provided numerous references to illustrate various empirical tests of the theory, as well as a proposal for a crucial laboratory test, which has not yet been performed. Barring a laboratory test, the strongest evidence for the theory will come from the data gathered by one of the experiments that make up the current Insight Mars mission. I conceived the idea of creating a full Wikipedia article on the theory after making an edit to the appropriate article about the Mars experiment to indicate that a test of this theory would be one of the bonuses from the the mission. In order to demonstrate that this was fact and not my personal opinion, I cited the principal investigator at NASA, with whom my friend has been in regular contact for perhaps a decade. Upon embarking on the drafting of the article, I discovered that I had not accumulated sufficient edits to qualify as a creator, and therefore made edits to other articles in related fields so that my proposed article could be cross-referenced, a procedure I assume to be quite standard. There are now mentions of the theory that are ready to be linked to my eventual article. All this took place in the last few days. This morning I am greeted by the news that a thread in the WikiProject Physics Talk forum is accusing me of starting a single purpose account (which I have pointed out to you is not the case) created to promote my friend's publications and claiming that the theory in question is too fringe to merit mention. The edits I made are deemed proof of corrupt intent. Apart from the slanderous accusation against me personally, this disclosure reveals a prejudice against the type of theory proposed by my friend. Following a much earlier suggestion by one of the great physicists of our time, it is based on a modification of Newtonian gravitation, and its conclusions call into question both the need for Einstein relativity and the foundations of the current model of cosmology, the Big Bang theory (not the TV show). In light of the assertions on the Talk forum, it begins to appear that the air is poisoned, and I wonder if an assessment of the submission on its own merits remains possible. I should point out that my friend is an emeritus professor of engineering with a long and illustrious career in academics, also serving as director of a prestigious university. He is an expert in Newtonian mechanics and has authored and co-authored university textbooks on this topic and related engineering subjects. In addition to his publications, he has presented his theoretical work in numerous lectures at institutions of higher learning and conferences, and has endeavoured to test its validity in publications spanning a 36 year period. I am therefore in need of advice as to how to proceed with the revision and resubmission procedure, knowing that the process may be tainted by bias. Thank you for your attention. Mischievousgnome (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC

Going forward, might I suggest paragraph breaks? This wall of text was quite difficult to digest. Your comments here have made it abundantly clear that you have a COI with the subject and should properly disclose so or cease editing as your ability to stay neutral seems quite compromised. We are going to heed and give heavy credence to the Wikiproject for Physics opinion about this article. I would work with them to establish the notability of this and the factual accuracy. Until then, this article should continue to be denied. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I did use returns at the ends of paragraphs, but these seem to have been stripped. With regard to your first recommendation, I did do disclosure as per instructions. To the best of my knowledge the content of the article is entirely factual. Should the opposite be demonstrated I would be happy to make amendments. I hope that the text will be fully vetted without bias on the part of editors once additional references have been entered and the article resubmitted.Mischievousgnome (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mischievousgnome:, use two returns at a time to split up paragraphs. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Mischievousgnome - The content appears to be fringe science, and appears to be an effort to use Wikipedia for original research. Portions of it read like they were either translated from French by someone who did not know the underlying subject matter, or like a piling on of academic terms. I am inclined to assume the latter, because it does not mention having been translated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

17:33:42, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Queenofboston[edit]


Queenofboston (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC) I have added another references to the Financial Times covering the interview of EU Scream with the spokesperson of the European Union on the Covid-19 crisis communication. This is to substantiate that EU Scream is contributing on an ongoing basis to public policy discussions in Brussels and the EU. I accepted all recommendations of previous reviewers and deleted a reference to a Forbes online article. It is difficult to find sources that are accessible to reviewers online that are at the same time not online articles. Some articles are pay-walled and that is also discouraged by Wikipedia, based on my other experience.

Queenofboston, pay-walled sources are fine as long as they are reliable, independent, and mention the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial coverage). How about you provide what you think are the three sources you think meet the general notability criteria best and I'll see if they actually do meet the criteria. This will save reviewing time on my part. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727 Most reliable source third party coverage was in the Financial Times, below are two Financial Times links and I also copy the text because they are paywalled. Third I copy the reference in Politico to a specific episode and event by EU Scream.

https://www.ft.com/content/b3d20cce-19fe-11e9-b93e-f4351a53f1c3

Elsewhere in EU podcast land, EU Scream's latest episode looks at the merits of Macron's “citizens dialogues” to revive European democracy.

https://www.ft.com/content/b2d1cca6-38b7-11e9-b72b-2c7f526ca5d0

Podcast du jour : Economic historian Barry Eichengreen gets personal with EU Scream about his new book, The Populist Temptation, and warns that a failure to complete monetary union could be catastrophic for Europe's politics.

www.politico.eu/newsletter/politico-eu-influence/politico-eu-influence-presented-by-deutsche-borse-hearing-palooza-%E2%81%A0-on-ethics-body-%E2%81%A0proposals-huawei-ex-lobbyist-sets-up-consultancy/

TIP-TOEING AROUND THE FAR RIGHT: Should lobbyists engage with far-right and extremist lawmakers? EU Scream recently convened an ambitious group to kick-start this conversation: Michiel van Hulten, the director of Transparency International EU; Maris Hellrand, an Estonian journalist and activist; Benedikt Herges, the head of Siemens’ Brussels office; and Heather Grabbe, the director of EU affairs at Open Society Foundations. Participants were then guided by professor and activist Alberto Alemanno in drawing up some preliminary guidelines for lobbyists. If you missed the event (and a sighting of yours truly), then you can have a listen here.

There is also this article by Forbes which I find is relevant but apparently is not reliable because it is an online article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carmenniethammer/2020/03/02/ai-bias-could-put-womens-lives-at-riska-challenge-for-regulators/#4fc3107f534f — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenofboston (talkcontribs) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

18:54:41, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Cavan.hill[edit]

Can someone please provide me with any assistance around finalising the article before it gets submitted.
I have updated references and removed un-verifiable references. Thanks, --Cavan Hill (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Cavan Hill (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

19:21:58, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Joecoolfavors[edit]


i have been working for a time on an article about a very accomplished musician, https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Draft:Craig_Bailey_(musician) I have been rejected twice now because of unreliable sources...i really need to overcome this obstacle, and i am very confident ini the natability of the artist. any suggestions would help!

Joecoolfavors (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Joecoolfavors Why do you have an urgent need to overcome this? The sources seem to be unchanged from previous reviews at least in terms of quality. This musician needs to have significant coverage (not just press releases, routine announcements) in independent reliable sources showing how he meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

21:08:29, 6 April 2020 review of submission by 76.88.34.163[edit]


76.88.34.163 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

21:39:27, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22[edit]


Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

one <ref> was missing I corrected it .please approve it is my first submission and will work hard for next submission . 
User:Tejaskapoor22 - The malformed reference to Nalandalive was not the main reason why your draft was rejected. You resubmitted your draft repeatedly after User:Sulfurboy and User:Theroadislong said that you had improper sources and that your draft needed to be cleaned up. Your unreliable sources included IMDB, which is not a reliable source, a Google search, and Wikimedia Commons. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

21:41:23, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Gvldz[edit]


Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} Dario Brignole is one of the most recognized sports marketers in the US. He deals with big companies around the US promoting Hispanic talent such as Mexican players: Giovani dos Santos, Miguel Layun, Guillermo Ochoa, Jonathan dos Santos, etc. Furthermore, he has worked with MLS executives such as Don Garber who has a Wikipedia page as well. Looking for advice on how to add a Biography of him in Wikipedia.

Gvldz (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gvldz - Your draft, Draft:Dario Brignole, reads like an advertisement for the services of Brignole. He may be a notable sports marketer, but, if so, a biography of a living person in Wikipedia should focus on what independent sources have written about him, and should be neutral and not promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

21:50:27, 6 April 2020 review of submission by DigitalScholar55[edit]


I would like to know the reason for requesting the speedy deletion of the draft of the Border Community independent record label page. This record label has been established since 2003 and is very well known. Several artists which have done releases on the label have a wikipedia page which links to the Border Community page, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/en/James_Holden_(producer) & https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Nathan_Fake.

Much smaller record labels have a wikipedia page, with far less content, see for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Silver_Planet.

Please note that I am in no way or form affiliated with the Border Community, I am merely a fan of several of the artists which release under that label.

Do let me know how I can improve the page in such a way that it can be considered for inclusion. Thank you.

DigitalScholar55 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

User:DigitalScholar55 - If you are not affiliated with the Border Community, your draft evidently read as if you were being paid to advertise them. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Robert McClenon - Thank you for the reply. Could you take a look at my draft and tell me which part of it read as being non-neutral? The article was a draft. The information I provided in it was the date of foundation of the label, who founded it, the completed infobox with metadata and the discography. I am puzzled as to how these objective facts may have been seen as attempt of advertisement. Note: I used the french wikipedia page as a template for writing it. DigitalScholar55 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
User:DigitalScholar55 I am not an administrator. Only administrators can view deleted material. Your draft was deleted as G11, advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
DigitalScholar55 I can view it. The draft did little more than state the existence of the record label and stated records they have produced; that's why it was considered advertising. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about the subject showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable organization. You offered no independent sources at all- only the label's own website. Wikipedia has no interest in what a subject says about itself, only in what others say about it. Please read Your First Article for more information.
Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to be permitted; see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected and unaddressed, even for years. We can only deal with what we know about. The existence of an article is entirely dependent on coverage in independent sources. If a "smaller" record label gets a lot of coverage, while a larger label does not, the smaller one will merit an article and the larger one will not. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

22:29:40, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Argentum2f[edit]


Article was rejected because of "Insufficient sourcing to establish notability".

Articles: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22anderson+functions%22+magnetics&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47

Books: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22anderson+functions%22+magnetics

A quick look through those results will show that many of the results use, refer to, or otherwise discuss 'Anderson functions' substantively (i.e. more than a passing manner). I only referenced a couple sources originally, because that's all that's necessary to describe what "anderson functions" are. I'm not sure how to proceed. I could add lots of sources (10s, possible 100s) that make more than passing references - but's there would be no actual purpose to these other than establishing notability. I've never seen another article with a section just saying "hey, here's a ton of references just to prove I'm notable", though, so how do I proceed? (Or should I?)

Argentum2f (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Argentum2f, Which one of your sources show significant independent coverage of the subject? Sulfurboy (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

22:41:16, 6 April 2020 review of submission by Kayhan2341[edit]

I will love to review the subject to something more simplified and take out some details out it

Kayhan2341 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

April 7[edit]

06:43:21, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Tejaskapoor22[edit]


Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

dear sir ,yes first two editors rejected my submission because I am new to this ,I had no idea earlier which sources are reliable ,but the third attempt I tried to do with the most reliable sources .if you can see sir .

and I had no idea that imdb and google is not reliable ,I put into the profile just for acknowledge ,that actor has done pretty good films .

please help me to make some few changes and make to publish this is my first work I needed support .

Tejaskapoor22 (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

please anyone can help me building the page kritn ajitesh .OR vcan nyone build the page

Tejaskapoor22 You have made the common error of diving right in to article creation without understanding the process or what goes into creating an article- which is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. New users are much more successful at creating articles when they first edit existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how Wikipedia works and for what is expected of article content. In this case, it might have helped you become familiar with the notability guidelines for actors. It appears that your friend does not meet those guidelines, at least with the sources you have provided. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects. Without such sources, your friend would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you are able to find such sources, you should first read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about the process. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

08:57:24, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Asthes[edit]

I would like to know why my draft was rejected ? I followed all the guideline of wikipedia to create a page on a new subject by referencing all by sources and to give more information about a company to whom it would interest. This is why I would a least like to know the reason of this reject.

Asthes (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Asthes, The article was a full on advertisement which is not welcome here. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


Request on 09:14:06, 7 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaystall80[edit]


hello, I am looking at getting further input into the article draft we have created and wonder if someone could point out where we need to look at or change? This is one of the first pages we have created so any further help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks

Jay Stall (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

It is just advertising, I suggest that like the many volunteers here, you spend a few hundred hours editing other articles before you have the gall to start charging for your services. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

10:23:55, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Mohammad Faiq Shah[edit]


Mohammad Faiq Shah 10:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Faiq Shah (talkcontribs)

Mohammad Faiq Shah, what is your question? Sam-2727 (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

10:57:13, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Lynda MALOCHET[edit]


Hi, thank you for your review. The goal of this page is informative, it wasn't the purpose tou make it sound like advertisement. What should i do to rework this ?

Regards, Lynda MALOCHET (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


Request on 11:07:00, 7 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Earthianyogi[edit]


Copula article declined[edit]

Hello, My article was declined by a senior editor :@Sulfurboy:. The comments provided were "What is going to be most helpful here is providing a lead that introduces the subject to the uninitiated reader. That is, imagine you are trying to explain this concept as simply as possible to someone that doesn't know about this subject, how would you do so? Once that is done we can properly assess the notability of the subject." This comment makes perfect sense, however, the concept is already define in another article on Wikipedia at URL https://en.wikipedia.org/en/Copula_(probability_theory). Does it mean that I am suppose to duplicate the same information in my article? Or it it more appropriate to merge two articles? Also, I would be thankful if a senior editor could help write this up so that it is accepted? Thanks for the feedback. Earthianyogi (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Earthianyogi, Yeah I wouldn't word for word repeat what's said in another article, but maybe incorporate the ideas in that lead with a simple connection made from that broader subject to this more specific topic, if that makes sense. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Sulfurboy, I think it does. I will try to add short context to the article and re-submit. Thx

Earthianyogi (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Earthianyogi - I see that you are trying to write about technical mathematical topics. I would suggest that you ask for advice at WikiProject Mathematics. I will also comment that I would rather read technical mathematical drafts that I do not understand than advertising that I do understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon Fantastic, thank you! Earthianyogi (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment to Other Experienced Editors[edit]

It appears that this new editor is trying to contribute to Wikipedia in highly technical mathematical areas, and is having difficulty with the style or approach, and should be encouraged. This editor is likely to provide more of a contribution to the encyclopedia than editors who want help in advertising their companies. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

12:15:52, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Dudup2020[edit]

Hello! I have been working on an article, and it's been declined three times. Could I get some specific help on what I need to change? Nothing is seeming to work. Thanks! Dudup2020 (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As you were told yesterday "You offer no independent reliable sources to show how this person meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable musician" So you need to find at least three of those before re-submitting. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

12:20:24, 7 April 2020 review of draft by Mollygmorris[edit]


Hiya,

I've been working on a page about Vernon Francois the hair stylist for a while now, which keeps getting declined for using a non-neutral tone. I think I've finally fixed it, but wanted to get some tips beforehand, as I don't want it to get deleted because it keeps getting declined. Is there anyway someone could take a look just to give me some feedback?

Thank you!

Mollygmorris (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

14:08:16, 7 April 2020 review of submission by EVS2015[edit]

Hi,

I've had two reviews and comments regarding the Wikipedia draft article on The Power of Nutrition. I made edits, trying to remove anything that read like an advertisement and changed the tone to more neutral. The second review also got declined because, additionally, it was not adequately supported by reliable sources. I was wondering how I could go about ensuring the article complies to the Wikipedia guidelines entirely? I thought there was still a good variety of independent, reliable, published sources, not just ones produced by the charity, so as this has been deemed not to be the case, I was wondering if anyone could perhaps point me to specific sections that don't comply, and in your opinion appear to be the problem?

Thanks. EVS2015 (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

14:16:19, 7 April 2020 review of draft by Mustafa Aw-Abdi[edit]


Mustafa Aw-Abdi (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You have not asked a question, your draft has not been submitted for review either, it has only one source and was declined previously for not being adequately supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

15:43:24, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Fh.india[edit]


Kindly tell me which is the promotional content I shall remove It immediately Fh.india (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User has been blocked for spamming. Theroadislong (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

17:25:35, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Geoffrey Luoma[edit]


Hello. I had published my sandbox page (very rough draft) for my class for someone to peer review it. Why was it rejected? Thank you! Geoffrey Luoma (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Geoffrey Luoma: Wikipedia does not publish original work or any essay-like submissions like this. Consequently, we also don't review work that isn't suitable for Wikipedia in the first place. If you believe the topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia, you have to begin by finding suitable sources and only then writing content based fully on those sources. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

18:03:54, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Anishjustoficial[edit]


Anishjustoficial (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Anishjustoficial: The person is not notable. The draft has been reviewed and you've been told this many times. There's nothing else to be done here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:56:01, 7 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by NanaKofiER[edit]


I believe the subject is notable for a wikipedia article, but i fear my lack of experience in creating wikipedia articles is hindering the process.

I respectfully ask a seasoned editor for assistance in creating an article that meets wikipedia standards.

Two things i would ask to be considered:

First, the subject has several published works on the web. It is easy to confuse published articles in credible news sources written by the subject and published articles written in credible news sources covering the subject. It seems like unintentionally the subject is being punished for being an authority figure with published writings.

Lastly, the source is an American living in America but has established authority, credibility and notability in the African country of Ghana. The Ghanaian sources include national news outlets in the country which should also be considered.

Thank you for your support.


NanaKofiER (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

NanaKofiER, have you written this article before perhaps under a different username? The article you're referring to I can't find (it isn't in your contributions). We (other Wikipedia editors) can help you format the article, but you need to write it yourself. How about you go ahead and create the article and I'll check out the formatting. If the sources you mention are independent, reliable, and mention the subject significantly (not just trivial coverage), then a Wikipedia article would be theoretically possible on this subject, but again you need to create it yourself. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

19:20:11, 7 April 2020 review of draft by EHoward83[edit]


Hello, I would like to publish an article on Jonathan Tel. My draft was rejected for lack of notability. How do I fix that?

EHoward83 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@EHoward83: As the big red banner on the draft page explains, you need to add multiple independent reliable in-depth sources to the article. You should follow the further comments left by the reviewer. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
EHoward83, Robert went above and beyond to explain why the article was declined. Did you have any specific questions about the policies he pointed out? Sulfurboy (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
If his short stories have appeared in The New Yorker, you need to cite those stories as evidence of his notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

20:44:29, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Chachanna[edit]

I am wondering what changed I need to make for a re review and to have my article accepted? Chachanna (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Chachanna, The article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. I would advise maybe editing existing pages for awhile before venturing in to the very complicated world of page creation. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

23:13:32, 7 April 2020 review of submission by Document hippo[edit]


I wonder what changes should be made for the article to be considered notable.

A retired Federal Security Service colonel who used to serve as the head of its public relations centre does sound to be a notable figure.

There's a lot of information in the Web, and I would appreciate any pointers regarding what kind of information should be added to that article.

--Document hippo (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

23:34:36, 7 April 2020 review of draft by Sdifenlin[edit]


Hi, i try to make game Draft with an image. But the game cover always disappear automatilly from the page. The image is low quality so it should not have copy right problem. Here is the image. Please help. Without image this page is not complete...



Sdifenlin (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdifenlin, actually you have a legitimate point here. Fair use images are only allowed in the article space, but it seems to me as if the draft space should allow them as well. I'm probably missing something though because I'm sure someone's thought of this before. Anyway, I would just go without an image for now and then when (or if) your page is published to the mainspace (that is, it becomes an article), you can add the image in. Hope this helps, Sam-2727 (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Yes thank you ! i think the problem has solved :3. It was an image in the draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdifenlin (talkcontribs) 12:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 8[edit]

01:53:18, 8 April 2020 review of submission by BelalMurad[edit]


BelalMurad (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

07:34:06, 8 April 2020 review of submission by BristolJack[edit]


BristolJack (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


How can I publish this article?

The short answer is that you can't. The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, you have no independent sources and no indication that they meet [[WP{:NARTIST]]. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:38:00, 8 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Anne De Frenne[edit]


hello, English is not my native language, so there are probablymistakes in my text. Sorry for this. I need your assistance for writting this article like an encyclopedia. I have already retrieved many information from the website and left the minimum. What can I continue to change? The reviewers ask for independant reliable published sources. There are three, what can I do better? Many thanks for your help. Best regards, Anne

Anne De Frenne (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

09:57:26, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Mr Tejal[edit]


Mr Tejal (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


09:59:12, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Mr Tejal[edit]


Hello, I have tried to write Amit Bhadana article. And I think I have written the article correctly, but even then the reviewers do not accept this article. I do not have much knowledge of English language. I might be mistaken for this. Please help me make this article. Thank you Mr Tejal (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

12:56:24, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Kotmic kenan[edit]

Kenan Kotmic is a 17 year old South African Independent Artist , Born (18 April 2002) raised in Johannesburg. He started making music back in September 2016 and has been at it ever since. Kotmic kenan (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kotmic kenan: You can comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kenan Kagiso Kumalo in regard's to the person's notability. There's not much else we can help you with if the person does not meet the threshold. Please also disclose any conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

13:56:45, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Kotmic kenan[edit]

please delete it a Kotmic kenan (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Kotmic kenan, speedy deletion requested. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Request on 14:16:59, 8 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by N77dawes[edit]


I would like to know what changes I need to make to the sources in order to publish this page. I would also like to present this page as a biography page.

Thank you for your support.

N77dawes (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

N77dawes, check out the links provided in the decline message. Essentially, your article must be supported by multiple independent, reliable sources that mention the subject of the article significantly (not just trivial references). Currently, the references you have that mention the subject of the article aren't independent of him, and the ones that are independent/reliable don't mention him significantly (if at all). Hope this helps. Let me know if you have a more specific question, Sam-2727 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

14:31:09, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Sairamg.13[edit]

Kindly help me getting my article to get approved Sairamg.13 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sairamg.13, an article must have multiple independent reliable sources to be considered notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. Generally, interviews aren't considered to be independent, and in general youtube videos shouldn't be cited as sources. I would recommend you try looking for reviews of her acting, or modeling. If sources complying with these guidelines exist, this is where they will probably be. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)



U have mentioned try looking for reviews of her acting, or modeling. .... so ehre shall be the reviews ? In Facebook page or in wer can u help wer to find i means in which source ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairamg.13 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

19:13:41, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Miraculousladybuggg[edit]


Miraculousladybuggg (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Miraculousladybuggg, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


20:11:14, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Agwarnock[edit]

Hello! I had recently tried to get an article published because it is part of a graded assignment for my english class. However, my request was rejected because it was marked "contrary to the use of Wikipedia" (or something along those lines, sorry) and was considered "an uncensored advertisment". The assignment is due today so I really need to get it published; I am willing to make the corrections needed in order to do so! Agwarnock (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Agwarnock, If your teacher is requiring that you have a published wiki page as part of an assignment then they are improprly using Wiki as a teaching tool. Please direct them to go to WP:ASSIGN Sulfurboy (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I have to follow the rubric that she has given. I appreciate the help, though! Agwarnock (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Agwarnock Your teacher has set you up to fail, and that is completely unfair to you. I would be willing to communicate with them to make that point. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Agwarnock also just a general piece of advice. Articles on companies/people are generally the hardest types of articles to write for Wikipedia because it's very hard to write them in a neutral tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
THank you, I have found that to be true. Any advice on what to include about a company on the page in order for it to be published ASAP? Agwarnock (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Agwarnock: please stop posting this all over the Wiki: you are wasting editor time by asking the same question on three pages (Here, the teahouse and also on Theroadislong's talk page). Once post will do it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

20:50:07, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Samoaja[edit]


Dear, May I ask why it was rejected so I can fix it. Its very similar to Zcash which has far less resources, information and references. What am I doing wrong? I would appreciate the help.

Samoaja (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Samoaja, The article has been rejected which means there is no hope to establish notability at this time and it will not be considered further. Just because another page exists doesn't mean this one should. See WP:INN. If you have an issue with the Zcash page you can nominate it for deletion if you feel it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Samoaja (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Dear There isnt another page for Hush coin. Maybe other pages with same name but not in cryptocurrency. This is the first time Hush coin page was tried to be created.

Samoaja, what Sulfurboy meant is that just because the zcash page exists doesn't mean that the hush coin page should necessarily exist. It must be considered on its own merits. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

21:42:40, 8 April 2020 review of submission by Ciete007[edit]


Dears:

Please, ¿What is the name of one Personal Template with fields (name, image, size, description, place of birth, place of death, nationality, occupation) like e.g. his partner Wolfang Förster in https://es.wikipedia.org/en/Wolfgang_F%C3%B6rster who is mentioned in the document.

Thanks a lot for support.

Regards, Ciete007

Ciete007 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Ciete007, copy and past this code, and if you want a more specific one (for a sports person), check out this template. Let me know if you need additional help in how to use these infoboxes as template modification can be intimidating at times. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 9[edit]

Request on 01:36:15, 9 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kojomo[edit]


I'm a new editor on Wikipedia who is either missing something or not doing something right in my quest to creating this page. I have since the decline, deleted content that are promotional and not properly sourced to my understanding but I would be grateful to any assistance provided as it will help me understand the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia better and further improve my knowledge to edit Wikipedia pages. I am currently stuck at this point and in need of your help. Thank you in advance.

Kojomo (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

05:10:39, 9 April 2020 review of submission by Lucyschneider[edit]

I need to remove copy-write information from the history, but am not sure how. My page submission was declined due to copy-write information, which i have since corrected, but the information is still in the history and this may cause the article to be deleted.

Lucyschneider (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)