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 Shoy (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 13 February 2020 (→‎20:13:13, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Rpierce13: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


February 7

02:08:28, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Bzcons44


We have gone out of our way so that the article is purely factual - not an advertisement!

We followed similar wording to that of Wikipedia's articles on IC Markets, an Australian-based online retail forex, Saxo Bank, a Danish investment bank specializing in online trading and investment; and IG Group, a UK-based company providing trading in financial derivatives.

The topic is sufficiently notable considering there that are many Wikipedia articles already published on the topic.

The article is not an advertisement and if it is deemed it is, then so are the three mentioned above! How come they are published? It doesn't make sense.


Bzcons44 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bzcons44, Who is "we"? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'We' are people that are interested in Forex.

Bzcons44 Well for starters, accounts are single use only. Also, if you have any sort of monetary relationship with HF markets, you must disclose that fact by following WP:PAID.
Be careful about comparing your article to existing ones. Many of the articles on Wikipedia were created before we began the rigorous Article for Creation process. That means a lot of ...honestly junk articles were created, and many of them have slipped through the cracks. You can read more about the logical fallacies involved in article comparison at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The IC Markets article is pretty bad. The Saxo bank article is not bad, but yours is nothing like it.\
While the article may be factual, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Our coverage requires neutrality. That is, the wording, tone, and sourcing, must not be biased for or against the subject. At the moment, it paints the subject in an overwhelmingly good light, and is in essence free advertising.
The real issue here however is that the subject just isn't notable. We don't write about all companies, and this one seems to be run of the mill. I reccomend you work on editing existing articles some, to get a feel for our process, before working on making articles from scratch. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:06:04, 7 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Happypillsjr



I am requesting assistance with this article because it fails WP:MUSICIAN but wondering there's any suggestion to approve it.


Happypillsjr ✉ 03:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happypillsjr, sadly, Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability might apply.
If there is significant coverage you haven't included in the article, you can add it, but if it doesn't exist your only option is to wait until they've done more stuff, hence had more coverage to base an article on. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:17:18, 7 February 2020 review of draft by Cre8tiveIQ


Hello, I've found more references online but they are youtube interviews. How do I go about referencing them and do they qualify as reliable sources? Cre8tiveIQ (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cre8tiveIQ, Interviews do not count towards notability, and should be used only sparingly. YouTube is not a reliable source, unless its copies of a news broadcast from a regular reliable source, such as the BBC. Even then, it really shouldn't be used. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8tiveIQ (talk • contribs) 05:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:33:46, 7 February 2020 review of draft by Annemmtv


Hi, requesting help for an article I had submitted for review. The content is on OTT platform "ManoramaMAX". The article was submitted for review twice and was rejected twice, both times because it sounded like an advert. Kindly requesting another review & help on how to improve the content. Anne VT 05:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Request on 07:13:09, 7 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Diosganar


I really want to know why my article is rejected

Diosganar (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diosganar, The article has been deleted, so can only be seen by admins.
It was deleted because it was deemed unambiguously promotional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote businesses. Articles should be written neutrally based on what reliable sources have previously written about the subject - if there aren't enough reliable sources to write an article, then the business isn't notable enough. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and given your user page states the business was founded in 2019, it almost certainly hasn't received enough coverage to base an article on. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:30, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Thuthignr


Thuthignr (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:08:02, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Zoya888


I'm confused about why she's not considered notable enough. I'm also stumped on sources. While yes, I do cite Vox as primary source material (in more of a bibliographical sense), I tried very hard to look for other people writing about her to describe her life, her work, and her impact on the field. I brought in sources from NPR, academia, and other newspapers.

What aspect of these sources are still dinging this article? I'm happy to bring in others, but don't want to keep making the same mistakes. A wizardly librarian (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:46:30, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Eslimarketing

  • Username missing!
    • No draft specified!

Esli_Pollet_Water_Group

Hello. I was trying to enter company info in Turkish, but got rejected and I don't know why. Could any one tell me how to submit correctly? Many thanks.

Eslimarketing (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eslimarketing First, you will need to change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to request a username change. Usernames cannot be that of a business per the username policy. You must also read and comply with the paid editing policy, a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement. You should also read about conflict of interest. Your draft was declined because you did not demonstrate with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that your company meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:46:17, 7 February 2020 review of draft by WriteIncunabula


Hello, I'm creating a page for an artist, and have uploaded some photos from flickr. Several of the photos are still there, but I noticed two of them appear to have been removed. I re-posted one, but the other won't go up via the Flickr to commons bot. A message flickers briefly on screen that I think reads the photo is already up. But it's too quick to be sure, and I can't find the image anywhere.

Also, I'm awaiting editor feedback, but am looking for any tips to make the page better. I've taken complete transcripts down from interviews and made sure to source every fact statement, but there are several interesting details I've left out for the sake of just sticking to basic facts and maintaining objectivity. I don't want the page to be "flowery" or sound as though it were promotional in any way, but I also don't want to exclude facts of interest. Any advice would be most welcome. Thanks!

WriteIncunabula (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you are creating a 'page' for an artist, do you represent the artist? 331dot (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:24, 7 February 2020 review of submission by IamMattDavies

I thought that it would be a notable topic to include (similar to that of Parliamentary train) and it has over references which are, of course, from reliable, published sources.

I disagree that the term is a neologism because it has varied use (especially since All the Stations).

Finally, it is not about the website, but about the term in general and the stations that ARE least used. IamMattDavies (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IamMattDavies, I would personally remove the mentions of the least used stations website, except maybe an external link. There seems to be too much focus on what they say, when they aren't a reliable source.
I would also move it to something like least used railway stations in the United Kingdom or something similar.
But overall, it is probably a notable enough topic.
Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
also, you might want to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 20:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:50:44, 7 February 2020 review of submission by StevePoulsen


I am attempting to create a new article. As this is my first one and time, I am struggling a bit to understand some of the requirements, and could use some clarification. The first submission was declined because the references did not show significant coverage, in reliable, secondary, sources that are independent. This actually made sense, as I had only linked to the subject's own website. So today, I decided to dig in a bit farther and find external information sources. To that end, I reworked some of the languages, and added new references to other sites, primarily news coverage sites, and then resubmitted.

It was shortly rejected again. For the same reason, and not adequately citing reliable sources. As best I can tell this means that unless the information can be referenced to an independent source, it will not be considered. Is this is correct? If the only location for some of this information, is the subjects own site, can that information not be included?

Any other information that would get the article publishable would be appreciated. I have a list of similar conventions that I want to do articles for as well but I want to get one thought he process first before I try others.


StevePoulsen (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StevePoulsen From examining your draft, it seems that you are writing about your own event. That means you have a conflict of interest you must formally declare; if you receive any compensation whatsoever(not just cash money) for your work with this event, you must declare as a paid editor as well. In looking at the sources, one (and part of another) is an interview with you, which is not an independent source. The rest are just very brief mentions or citing the mere existence of something(like the comics). Wikipedia requires significant, independent coverage from sources that have chosen on their own to write about your event. If such sources do not exist, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:59:24, 7 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Audreyne


Hello!

I am currently trying to create a page for musician Daniel Aged (of Wikipedia-page-having group Inc. No World) but have had both drafts thus far rejected. I have included links about both the group and Aged as an individual so I am curious as to what might legitimize my page more.

I would sincerely appreciate any and all guidance that could possibly get the page published and up to Wikipedia's standards!

Best, Audrey


Audreyne (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article (not just a "page") you are trying to create does not show that the person has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That coverage must go beyond brief mentions or routine announcements. In addition, it's not clear that the person meets Wikipedia's definition of a notable musician. Lastly, you seem to be saying that this person is notable because they have worked with other notable people- however, notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:10:23, 7 February 2020 review of draft by Nandasiri Gunaratne


I started this article with the intention that the others will also send some sources and references. I noticed there was another person update this document. But with no references. please let me know one sentences that i have not written in neutral format. Then taking that as an example i will correct the rest of the article. I requested that from the previous editor too. Still waiting for his response. Please assist me since this is my first article on Wikipedia. Thanks. Nandasiri Gunaratne (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:12:55, 7 February 2020 review of submission by Vikulgupta1703


Hi I have done more change and added board of directors in my page. Is that looks ok now. I did changed the subject also. Please let me know what changes we need. Thanks in advance.

Vikulgupta1703 (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for being an advertisement, deleted for being a copyright infringement, and  On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Vikulgupta1703#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

08:17:27, 8 February 2020 review of draft by JogiAsad


This university was announced, then foundation stone was laid, and at that time I had started a draft for that university, and someone probably reviewer suggested to resubmit when the university starts functioning. but still I don't see any newsreference about it whether its functioning or still in process.JogiAsad (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JogiAsad, If few or no references discuss the subject, then it is not notable.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:08:44, 8 February 2020 review of submission by 2409:4042:2010:1460:FCD0:AEFC:969A:2408


2409:4042:2010:1460:FCD0:AEFC:969A:2408 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:42, 8 February 2020 review of submission by 2409:4043:717:2E40:92F3:AEBC:A936:934C


2409:4043:717:2E40:92F3:AEBC:A936:934C (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite promotional in tone. Our articles present our subjects nuetrally, without embellishing. Your wording makes it sound like a promotional piece. If you have more specific questions, please ask them.CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:45, 8 February 2020 review of draft by Reewrites


My article keeps getting rejected. This is my first article, and I am trying to write a page about a musician. He has several newspaper articles as references. Could you kindly let me know why the article is getting rejected?

Reewrites (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reewrites You have been given some answers to your questions in your draft itself, at the top. In short, it is not clear that this musician meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. The sources offered do not appear to have the significant coverage required- brief mentions, routine announcements(such as the announcement of the release of a single), and so on are not acceptable for establishing notability. If you haven't already, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:03:20, 8 February 2020 review of draft by Katerinapartlova


Katerinapartlova (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do I do when certain references are simply unavailable online?

References do not need to be online, BUT you do need to declare your clear conflict of interest on your user page, before you make any further edits. Theroadislong (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:46:13, 8 February 2020 review of submission by Erin miller2020


Erin miller2020 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erin miller2020 As you have been told in the draft itself, it is an advertisement for what I assume is a product that you are associated with in some way. Please review conflict of interest and paid editing for some required formal disclosures you must make if that's the case. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:55:54, 8 February 2020 review of submission by Jonashgs


Hello

I added our published sources.

Our sources are all offline and on physical paper.

Do I need to bring them online to get verified, or what do I have to do?

Please let me know, because usually physical papers are reliable sources - right?

Please help

Jonashgs (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

05:13:54, 9 February 2020 review of draft by Azurerae


This author has an IMDB id and one of her books made into a movie. Still not considered notable? --Azurerae (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can write your own IMDb profile, so that shows no notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but what about the fact that her book was made into a movie? --Azurerae (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a notable film (no article) and you have a press release as a source which isn't considered reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The movie comes out on the 14th of this month. Thanks for the info. So, what is a reliable source for a movie then? --Azurerae (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, sources like PR Newswire and SoapCentral.com aren't acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurerae (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are never reliable sources because they are not independent, see WP:PRSOURCE. Anyone can issue a press release. shoy (reactions) 19:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:27:34, 9 February 2020 review of draft by Hyacknot

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

FIRST TELL US WHY YOU ARE REQUESTING HELP ON THE LINE BELOW THIS LINE. Take as many lines as you need. -->

It's been quite a while since this page was submitted for review. It's been worked on by wiki contributers as well and everything seems to be in order both in format as well as details. The page is necessary to serve as a bio and increase credibility of Arjun Chatterjee as a film director. Sincerely request that this be moved to the main article page soon. Thank you very much.

Hyacknot (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacknot Reviews are conducted by volunteers, who do what they can when they can- in no particular order. There isn't really any way to speed things up, as there are thousands of draft awaiting review. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:52, 9 February 2020 review of submission by Flokiittbi


Flokiittbi (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flokiittbi: Sorry, but the company is not notable and there's nothing we can do at this time. The article is a PR piece. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:11, 9 February 2020 review of submission by Sidgujjar1000


Sidgujjar1000 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:22, 9 February 2020 review of submission by Sukoner


Sudip Koner 16:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

A quick search on Google would show that, like most of us you are probably not notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:37, 9 February 2020 review of submission by EduCow

I recently created an article regarding an extinct species called Centrobunus braueri. I got a message saying that the article wasn't adequately supported by reliable sources. I used the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) website for this, which is basically the most reliable and quite honestly, the only source that I can use since this is a not well-known species, but is notable enough to be found on the Wikipedia article IUCN Red List of extinct species IUCN Red List of extinct species Should I re-submit the article for review, or should I try to find a second reliable source?EduCow (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)EduCow EduCow (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use ICUN as a source though, you added it as an external link, please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi EduCow although it was on the ICUN website that is definitely a reliable source, that source does not cover all the information in the article. I looked myself for other sources but came up blank other than lots of mentions in the group of species declared extinct at the same time. If you can find another source or more that would be great. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone thinks the ICUN listing is enough happy to see it pass. KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked for further sources but came up blank. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:32, 9 February 2020 review of draft by Nature987765


Nature987765 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My draft has been rejected twice. I understand and accept why it was not accepted the first time because I was wrong to put that she was a ‘model’. She is a socialite, an activist in raising awareness about epilepsy and works in fashion PR. I don’t understand why it was rejected the second time and the reason given was that it was not in a formal enough tone. If anyone wishes to check my draft, he or she will see that I have separated the sections accurately and I have provided plenty of different and reliable sources. I’m confused as to why it was rejected and I’m not sure what I can do to make sure the article does get accepted. If anyone can help me, I would be grateful.--Nature987765 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nature987765: For one thing, you are citing a lot of facts about a person from the person themselves. That is never a reliable source. I am not sure the person is even notable. Are there any in-depth sources where it isn't just her being interviewed? It all looks like run-of-them mill celebrity gossip and tabloid material and nothing encyclopedic. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your reply. Well, some of the agencies she has worked for have provided a brief biography about her. If you look on Getty Images, you will see she has appeared at many different events (parties, openings, etc) with some very famous people. She is the ambassador of a charity which helps promote awareness about epilepsy. She is from a very wealthy family and is a known socialite, she associates with many other socialites (I have linked to a few on the draft). There are many articles which contain a lot less information and fewer sources, so I don’t understand why Fleming’s article isn’t enough to be accepted.

What do you suggest I should do? I have sourced different agencies she has either worked for or still works for and I have provided different sources from the BBC to interviews about her activism about epilepsy.--Nature987765 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC) There are independent articles which have been written about her, such as: “Hum Fleming, the woman who can’t remember anything that happened six months ago” - Helen Rumblelow (The Times).--Nature987765 (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC) @Hellknowz: I have provided various sources to support that she works for different fashion/model agencies and I have quoted writers and interviewers who have given their thoughts on Fleming. Obviously her activism about epilepsy is going to include her own thoughts because she suffers from it which is what made her become active about making people more awareness in the first place. And, Fleming can’t be that unknown considering she was invited to Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank’s wedding. There is more to her than just being the great-niece of Ian Fleming.--Nature987765 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nature987765:All these things you mention -- socialite, charity, agencies, activism, etc. -- do not by themselves establish notability on Wikipedia. It has to be 1) significant coverage in 2) independent 3) reliable sources. I can't suggest anything else at this time but to make sure you have shown such sources. I think The Times might pass, but it's behind a paywall, so I can't check. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:22:35, 9 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by John BG Johnson



John BG Johnson (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is there anybody that can assist me to finish this article? THANK YOU.

Your draft has been rejected "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia." I suggest you try editing some of the many thousand existing articles, which require improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:24, 9 February 2020 review of submission by 69.165.140.203

I am requesting assistance because the article is about a match-3 game by Playrix 69.165.140.203 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your subject is not notable. There is nothing you can do about this. To have an article, you need significant coverage in reliable sources. You don't have this. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 10

00:24:15, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Sowamshe


I have added a line to my own web site from which I quoted several lines that are on the Wiki entry to clarify that I release any copyright provisions for this page only: http://sowamsheritagearea.org/wp/

None of the other lines that appear on Earwig's Copyvio Detector were copied from those sites; they are all original writing strictly by me.

This should clarify the copyright problems that were previously cited and allow the entry to be posted.

Sowamshe (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


00:45:49, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Sowamshe


Now that I think I've resolved the copyright of my own writing issue, I'd like to know why this entry is "contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia". It's a basic entry about an historic location that is cited frequently and that has no easily-found reference. I have researched information about this topic from hundreds of sources, the major ones of which are included in the references. My own extensive web site needs a Wiki reference as to many other Wiki sites that refer to "Sowams" but give not reference to it. We are in the process of building support for a National Sowams Heritage Area and would like to be able to define Sowams on Wikipedia. Doesn't that make sense?

Sowamshe (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify who "we" is please? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only author on Sowamshe. The "We" refers to the collective efforts of dozens of people in East Bay Rhode Island who would like to establish a new National Heritage Area featuring Sowams. None of them are Wiki authors or contribute to the postings that I alone author. No one else is using or contributing to Sowamshe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowamshe (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:04:14, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Johnpaterno


Hi, i am requesting to review this article. Jonn Poker is indeed notable on social media. If googled his name you can see blog articles, social media links and more about him. One of the reason i am trying to get this article published is because of the disambiguate information that is between Jonn Poker and the word Poker itself. When searched on google, you can find other links to things that not necessarily connect with him but most importantly Jonn Poker gets linked to people such as JOHN CYNN who are poker players. This is not fair and people searching for "Jonn Poker" should find more content about him and not other people. I am therefore requesting a second look to the subject in question with the hopes that i could convince you guys to accept this article. Johnpaterno (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in what Google searches turn up, your draft has been rejected because the subject is not notable, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube are not reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs)

04:55:24, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Dileshwar Singh Patil


Hi,  User:Creffett edited the article Draft:Big Boy Toyz per this revision, placing COI and Notability tag while I had fully disclosed WP:PAID and surprisingly has recently also been rejected as being not notable, when it passes WP:NCORP. I believe I'm being treated harshly and ufairly here... Not to mention the other editor User:Lapablo as well, who has been ignoring my pingings per this discussion with regards to the other article Draft:Daniel Etim Effiong in terms of disclosure. I'm coming on here to hear from other editors who are more experienced and not bias about WP:PAID (pinging @331dot: as he/she is one of the admins active on the Help Desk) Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. The author refused to make disclosure of WP:PAID violation after several warnings and attempt of moving page to mainspace without allowing go through AFC process. Disclosure was made just recently on the 8th of February among 2 other articles which author has created. Lapablo (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lapablo, there's still YOUR undisclosed payment tag on Draft:Daniel Etim Effiong. I don't think I'm the one who's supposed to remove it since you are the one who had initially placed it there (and I think the right procedure would be for you to be the one who removes it) - After all I've disclosed :( Regards Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:02:57, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Malvineous

This article has been rejected because there aren't enough secondary sources and despite including some drawbacks and limitations in the article, apparently it reads like an ad. Unfortunately because the article covers a proprietary protocol, there isn't much around in the way of secondary sources as it seems to have only recently been made public. It's also very difficult to change the tone when you are basically just describing the capabilities right off the protocol spec.

I have been working to try to understand this protocol as it's used by a device I own, and I want to be able to control it with open source software (of which there is none). I was surprised that Wikipedia had no mention of the protocol given that apparently it's used by many thousands of devices in the professional audio world. I thought I would be able to fill that gap by trying to document what the protocol is and actually does, but now I'm being told that it's not notable and apparently Wikipedia would prefer to have no information about it at all? I must confess I don't really understand why no information is preferable to knowing what something actually is, especially when at the start of this exercise it took me quite a while to dig through all the press releases and marketing fluff to work out what this thing actually does and does not do.

Would someone be able to offer some advice as to whether this sort of article even stands a chance of being included? I've already spent a lot of time digging through the spec sheets so I could put the most relevant info into the article, but if it's just going to get canned regardless then it's better that I don't waste any more time on it. Looking at pages like Midas XL8 and GSIF I don't really understand why they are allowed in but this one with more detail and more references isn't? What do those pages have that I haven't put in this one?

I'm happy to take specific constructive criticism on board, but being told "oh it sounds a bit like an ad" is much too vague to be helpful.

Malvineous (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malvineous If there are few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this protocol, it would not merit an article on Wikipedia at this time. No amount of editing can change that. It is considered to be an "ad" because it does little more than describe the product and its features- Wikipedia articles must do more than that- summarizing what independent reliable sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:38:54, 10 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 134.0.196.182


Dears in Wikipedias, im trying to upload an article about Majlis Al Dawla in Sultanate of Oman but your team reject it and the reason was the article already exists in Wikipedia by name Council of Oman (as they said), i would like to inform you that are so any different between them Council of Oman contain both of Majlis Al Dawla (State Council) and Shora Council So Majlis Al Dawla has own privacy and im trying to upload an article which contain detailed information about it.

Please help me to do that to publish cultural information about Majlis Al Dawla to the people.

Best Regards Salim

134.0.196.182 (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:21, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Nicola.Weissner

Hello, I'm requesting assistance, as my draft was declined and I was invited to discuss about it here by User:DGG. Could you pleaase tell my, why the article got declined and what I can do to improve quality? Thank you very much! Nicola.Weissner (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Nicola.Weissner (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola.Weissner I would first ask if you are associated with Hemmersbach in some way; if so, you will need to review and comply with the conflict of interest and paid editing policies(the latter is a Terms of Use requirement if you are an employee or otherwise paid).
Your draft was declined because its citations are either primary sources or brief mentions of this organization. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in order to establish that the company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:19:57, 10 February 2020 review of draft by Gamorosia


I have in line citations but this article was declined. Do I need to add footnotes and if so how do I do that? I have read the referencing guidelines and don't see that functionality in my page.

Gamorosia (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamorosia, we need both. The citation in the text just points to the full information, which should be in the footnote at the end. At the moment, there isn't enough information for us to find the reference.
We typically use templates to do this for us - see user:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners, or if you want to use Harvard referencing Template:Harvard citation documentation. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:27, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Sowamshe

Why does Robert McClenon say that Draft:Sowams is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia? The entry is a simple description of a 17th century place name that appears in other Wiki pages (Warren, Rhode Island). The name has historic significance and is cited in primary and secondary sources about Plymouth Colony. I don't understand his objection. Sowamshe (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Sowamshe (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sowamshe: Please read the explanation left on the draft. It goes into more detail than what you saw. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:21, 10 February 2020 review of submission by Ajnk1234


Good morning -- just wanted to flag that this entry has been updated with suggestions made by the help desk. Thanks in advance!

Ajnk1234 (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajnk1234: - I've submitted it on your behalf, as I feel it does warrant a second review with the additions/removals Nosebagbear (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:02:54, 10 February 2020 review of draft by LukeLovesEditing


I need help collecting references and critical reception for my draft that I am writing on Louis Armstrong's all time greatest hits. Tsunami307 (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:19:00, 10 February 2020 review of submission by PapayaWiki105


Hi -

I'm requesting a re-review because the current submission for QC's wikipedia page is not dissimilar to other production/finance companies which have Wikipedia pages, and I have added links below to the pages for the similar companies. The latest submission was rejected in December, and I haven't heard back from @SamHolt6 since then. It is now February, and I truly would appreciate any further guidance or an explanation as to why the QC Entertainment Wikipedia page draft is not adequate.

Scott Free Productions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Free_Productions

Original Film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_Film

MonkeyPaw Productions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeypaw_Productions

In short, production/finance film companies should absolutely be presented on Wikipedia. QC Entertainment is a premier company in entertainment.

I look forward to any and all responses.

Appreciate the help.

Thanks, Okey

PapayaWiki105 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other poor quality articles exist is not a good reason to create more. Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have also said "I work for QC Entertainment. As a full-time employee of QC Entertainment, one of my many job responsibilities is to create a Wikipedia page for the company. I do apologize for the repeated submissions for QC's Wikipedia page - but it is the company's desire to have a Wikipedia page, as we believe it will enhance the company's profile." Wikipedia is not here to enhance your company's profile! Your draft has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 11

02:39:37, 11 February 2020 review of draft by Monsieur Nam


I have volunteered to write a Wikipedia article for my fraternity, although the only issue is that a lot of the material I wish to use as reference material is not cite-able, as it is not publicly available. In my initial submission, I just cited our fraternity's Facebook and Instagram page, but my submission was declined for lacking proper citations. What can I do to correct this?

Thanks! -Sam

Monsieur Nam (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam I don't think there is anything you can do. If your fraternity is not written about with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are publicly available, it would not merit an article at this time. Social media accounts are not independent sources, and sources in private hands not available to the public are not acceptable, as it must be possible to verify them. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to also declare your conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I understand how using our own fraternity's social media might be considered as 'unreliable', however almost every major fraternity uses their own websites as references. Furthermore, many of the already approved fraternity pages for newer/smaller frats I have looked at have used their social media as a reference and had no problems... There is definitely some improvement that needs to be done on my article (it is still a draft after all), but considering that very few other pages relating to the same sort of topic have more reliable sources I would assume that some leeway would be given to others of the same nature as well.

On another note, I did intend to declare a conflict of interest, but I'm not quite sure how to do that as this is my first article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Nam (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam Beware in citing other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Each article is judged on its own merits. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. I'd be very interested to see other articles on fraternities that rely on citations to their own social media accounts. Wikipedia summarizes what independent sources state, not what an organization says about itself. As I note above, if there are no independent sources, it would not merit an article. This goes for other articles on fraternities as well. Not every organization merits an article here, even within the same field.
There are formal ways to declare a conflict of interest, but a simple statement on your user page is usually sufficient("I am Monsieur Nam and I am a member of a fraternity that I am writing an article for"). Please sign your discussion page posts; I will provide you with instructions on how to do this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page as you have recommended. I will also be sure to use the signature and timestamp for all my future comments. Thanks you for pointing that out. I can provide a list of a number of Wikipedia articles for fraternities and/or sororities which use their own sites as reference. It seems not at all uncommon, as most societies maintain some level of secrecy. I did my best to simply summarise the fraternity and did not give any opinion. Might I ask which parts of my article most need sources so I might try and resubmit it with more appropriate sources? Thanks again. --Monsieur Nam (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Nam You need more independent sources. I would take a moment and consider what the article content would be if you left out all primary sources and the content that they support(the fraternity website, its social media accounts, etc.) Primary sources can be used in certain limited circumstances(see WP:PRIMARY) but cannot establish that an organization meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Only independent sources can do that. Does your fraternity do charitable work that is covered in the news? Has it led protests against/for any cause that are covered in the news? Does it have an influence on the university that independent sources have documented? It's not just about avoiding 'giving opinion'; Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about your fraternity.
Information based on private fraternity information that isn't revealed publicly ("MOZ is known to have a number of executive positions within each of its two chapters, however exact positions and their respective responsibilities/duties are not publicly known. ") should be removed entirely. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:24:40, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Techmallus


Techmallus (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techmaullus You don't ask a question, but one uncited line will not be accepted as a article. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial for more information on Wikipedia and creating an article(actually the hardest task on Wikipedia). 331dot (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:10:06, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Nature987765


Nature987765 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I’m not sure why my draft was rejected as a “combination of advertising and gossip”. Underwood has been in the limelight since the late 2000s because of her close friend Lara Bingle (she was her manager in an Australian television series). I have included the brands she created, the blog she runs about fashion and travel. One of her co-partners, Sabine Römer, has her own article which has a lot less information. The only “gossip” I can see in my draft is about the rumour she was dating a British singer (the rumour is sourced). The majority of the article is about her being an entrepreneur. She is notable because there are lots and lots of independent articles about her and she has been known to the public (especially in Australia) for at least a decade.--Nature987765 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 Interviews with her are not acceptable for establishing notability, as interviews are a primary source. Wikipedia should only summarize what independent reliable sources state. You may find it helpful to read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Respectively, I have only used a couple of interviews as sources. I have provided independent sources about her brands.--Nature987765 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 The sources I examined, even if not entirely interviews, consist of quotes from her and/or are brief mentions of her. Wikipedia requires significant, independent coverage in reliable sources- more than just a brief mention of her relationships or brands(if it's her brands that get coverage, that might merit the brands an article, but not her personally). 331dot (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Hi. Thanks for replying to me. Can you re-examine the draft now? I have added more independent sources about her, not her own words or brief mentions about her, but full articles about her.--Nature987765 (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nature987765 You've cited that she has founded some brands and the existence of her blog. That's not significant coverage. The sources need to describe a lot more than just the fact she founded some brands and writes a blog. For example, Bill Gates's article doesn't just say "he helped found Microsoft and is rich". It describes his actual influence on the company and the events of his life leading up to that influence. Why is it significant that Underwood founded these brands? Why is it significant that she writes a blog?
I welcome you getting other opinions and viewpoints on this- and if they differ, fine with me- but I can only tell you things as I see them and I really don't think based on what I know now that Underwood merits an article at this time. That can certainly change in the future, but I don't see it now. You can certainly disregard what I am saying and resubmit the draft anyway, but I think the chances of success are low. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I don’t want to disregard what you have replied to me because I value your opinion. May I ask, why does Underwood not merit an article, but one of her co-founders Sabine Römer does have her own article? If anything, Underwood is more known than Römer. There are many articles on Wikipedia with a lot less information and fewer sources referenced in the articles. I have read the Wikipedia articles about creating articles (drafts), using verifiable sources, notability, etc. I don’t pay too much attention to the fact that she has her own blog to describe her travel experiences and fashion. She’s an entrepreneur in London who has achieved quite a lot in her life since graduating from university. She founded and is a co-owner of some well known brands in the UK. Should I add about her influences in the brands?--Nature987765 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In quickly glancing at it, I think that perhaps Römer might not merit an article either, for the same reasons. However, it wouldn't matter if Römer did or not, as each article is judged on its own merits, see other stuff exists. If independent sources have written about Underwood's influence on her brands, (again, not interviews/quotes from her or just citing that she founded them) that should be in the draft. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
having seen it, I just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabine Römer DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:14, 11 February 2020 review of submission by LukeLovesEditing


I need help with the editing part, if you could walk me through on some parts, that would be really helpful.

Tsunami307 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:29, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Eveliendezwart

19:21:29, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Eveliendezwart


Eveliendezwart (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]



19:53:51, 11 February 2020 review of submission by 74.108.27.177


Hi there, I'm confused as to why my article was rejected. I used only reliable sources that feature the subject, not just mention him in passing and also linked out to other family member's wiki pages that mention him. Would love some advice!!

74.108.27.177 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:57:14, 11 February 2020 review of draft by Olivefresh


I reckon the previous version seemed to be lack at the 3rd party-sources. I added more materials be independent to the subject. My question is if this addition/edition would be enough to be published? Please kindly/specifically advise me if further improvement needed.

Olivefresh (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:13, 11 February 2020 review of submission by Rpierce13

The page called Airshare is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia database. This company is mentioned numerous times on the page for Jet Cards and is among the ranks of its competitors, such as Wheels Up and Plane Sense, who also have pages. I would like to request a re-review of this page. Thank you. Rpierce13 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rpierce13 Please see other stuff exists. Not every company merits an article, even in the same field. Please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you offer are just routine coverage or information from the company website; Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on jet cards is a magnet for spam and most of the companies in that article don't belong there. Of the two other articles you mentioned, Wheels Up was previously deleted for lack of notability and (to my eyes at least) is on the bare edge of passing WP:NCORP, whereas PlaneSense actually seems like a notable company and our article just needs some more sources to be added. Every article is judged on its own merits. shoy (reactions) 20:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:56, 11 February 2020 review of submission by 58.171.92.113


Hi, I'm just wondering why this page was deemed not suitable. As far as I can tell, the sources show that Kay Stammers is a public figure (a television reporter, with many similar to her appearing on Wikipedia), and the sources were also impartial.

It was noted that the submission read "like an advertisement". However, the submission simply contained two facts about a television personality that I saw was missing from Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how that's like an ad. I'd like to improve this article if I can and would like help understanding why it's ineligible. Thanks!

58.171.92.113 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question. The text does little more than state that Stammers exists- which is essentially an advertisement. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects showing how the person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. The two sources you offered just confirm that she exists and has a job. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


February 12

01:05:34, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Leila Jeffreys 72


Leila Jeffreys 72 (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for taking the time to re-review this submission. I have a couple of issues I'm hoping you can offer advice on.

1. This is not an autobiography. I am an independent contractor compiling resources for Leila and thought it best to create a page for her using details she can easily access when I am no longer working directly for her. If you feel it would be beneficial to create a new Wikipedia account with my own details rather than Leila's, I can resubmit that way. Could you pls let me know if this will be helpful?

2. I've received feedback that Leila does not satisfy the notability criteria for creative arts. I have reviewed these criteria and I am hopeful that you will revise this assertion. She's the subject of a 30-minute documentary commissioned by Australia's national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (criteria 3). She's exhibited her artworks in Australia, Hong Kong, the USA and the UK (criteria 3 & 4). Her work has been included in public exhibitions and is part of many private collections around the world (criteria 3 & 4). She has been featured in notable, reliable and objective publications all over the world also and with her most recent exhibition in Australia she was the subject of major features in numerous well-regarded titles (The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, Australian Geographic, Art Almanac, Art Daily, Artist Profile etc ) (criteria 1). She has been interviewed extensively because of the unique way she is able to present her subjects (criteria 2). She has also published her work in book-format at the request of major publishers both here in Australia as well as in North America and the UK (criteria 3). I've kept her entry deliberately brief and avoided hyperbole - there's nothing misleading in her entry. Some of the references I have supplied link back to Leila's website b/c she has been very diligent in keeping track of her own press and some of the articles published on her are no longer available online, however, they are genuine articles and can be accessed via her website.

To quote the former curator of Australia's National Portrait Gallery, Dr Sarah Engledow, Leila's work is "simultaneously serious and witty, gentle and impactful; technically, they are quite miraculous. Her rapport with her subjects, her technical ingenuity, her eye for colour, form and composition and her expertise in the processes of fine art photography combine to create singular works that have often – alas – been imitated but have never come close to being equalled.”


I am hopeful this clarification will aid the justification of Leila's case for a wikipedia entry.

Thanks again for your time,

Mel

Leila Jeffreys 72 If you are not Leila, you must change your username immediately. Please visit Special:GlobalRenameRequest to make a username change request. Once you change your username, you must review and comply with the paid editing policy; this is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you review some other articles on artists to get an idea of how they are structured and what content is being looked for. Any article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. The draft as it stands now is just a list of work and accomplishments, little more than a resume. This is why Leila does not seem notable- if she is, you need to demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:10:47, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Contrary.Carrie


I would like to get feedback on the edits made .. I resubmitted in December with a much more comprehensive article and list of references. If additional edits are needed, I would appreciate feedback so I can make those changes. Thank you!

Contrary.Carrie (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:53:15, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Viditalk14


I wanted to check how to edit this article further. Are the establishments within the mall considered advertisement? What aspects of the mall should I focus on? Thank you! Viditalk14 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viditalk14 You need to focus on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the mall. Significant coverage goes beyond press releases and routine business announcements(such as a purchase, opening, etc.). The mall website is not an independent source. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:00:30, 12 February 2020 review of submission by VodkaWaka


This article is inspired by the same title in Mandarin. Please go read it. Everything written is based on what already happened. I don't see anything wrong here for truth being documented.

This Wikipedia, should be helpful to me, to create articles. That means I need serious advice.

VodkaWaka (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VodkaWaka, The version in Mandarin is up for deletion, and for good reason. It is intended to simply attack a living person, which goes against our policy on living people. This version is also poorly translated. It seems unlikely that the page would be approved, no matter what edits were made to it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:49:34, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Mahul sharma


I have already added the citation in the footnotes then why my draft is declined again. I want to know the real reason for rejection. Kindly help me as i want to correct my draft Lerocque.

Mahul sharma (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahul sharma: Did you read the reasons given in the pink boxes? Those are the 'real reasons'. Did you follow the advice given in those boxes? If so you'll have added inline citations that show where the statements you've made about Leroque can be verified, and you'll have re-written the draft to be less like an advert. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:31:07, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Samantakbhadra

The reviewer said that the article seems to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article. It is true that the article emphasizes the Brussels airport terror attack in 2016 as Nidhi (the article is about her) rose to prominence as a survivor of the attack. Post that, she has been a well-known leader of the employees agitation to revive the now defunct Jet Airways. She has also published her memoir last months and is currently touring the country launching her book. Therefore, given that she is a well-known person due to the attack, her Jet Airways activism and her book (along with multiple awards and talks), we would like to further emphasize the fact that the article is about Nidhi and her journey and not only about the terror attack although that is prominently mentioned in the article. Kindly do review the article and let us know if we can make certain edits which would allow the article to become notable enough for publication on Wikipedia. Thank you so very much! :) Samantakbhadra (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samantakbhadra, On Wikipedia, we only cover folks who are notable. We also generally do not cover people notable for only one event. The only thing that might make the subject notable is being a victim of the bombing, not her memoir or her union activity. At the moment, I'm afraid that she isn't notable by our standards. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:43:47, 12 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Nayabks


Hello there,

I am requesting assistance to discuss the decline of the submission. My Wikipedia submission was based on another laundry company that is published here. This is the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressto

I believe my referencing was stronger than theirs, because mine proves that "Laundry by time signature" was awarded by ISEA for being the best Laundry Service. In my understanding, anybody given prestigious awards that prove the quality of their services to be at the forefront of their industry is notable enough but I might be wrong. Can you please help me point out what might be lacking from my end?

Thank you for the support, I admire every volunteer for their service. I\


Nayabks (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nayabks Your draft only has two sources and does little more than state that the company exists. (the article you mention has its own issues as well, which is why it is not good to use the existence of other articles to justify your own, see other stuff exists) Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about companies that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Because of this, not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. Please read Your First Article for more information. As for the award- which doesn't seem particularly remarkable at least without context- any organization can give out awards, but for the award to be significant there needs to be significant, independent coverage of the award(like for the Academy Awards or Grammy Awards or Tony Awards. The article on ISEA International does not even mention that they give out awards or why, let alone any independent coverage of them. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:44, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Nayabks


Hello Wikipedians!

I'm requesting help because I want to understand the objections on my draft so that I can effectively work on improving the draft. There are 2 main objections:

  1. 1 Sources are not good enough:

What I'm unable to understand about the verifiability of a reference is, what determines if the website is seen as a good 3rd party source? Because I have posted news sites like "Market watch" as one of the references but even those didn't pass. On top of that, some of the top Indian entrepreneur news sites were also declined, such as: "Silicon India".

  1. 2 The tone is not neutral enough:

I am neutral about the topic and had written from a neutral point of view. But I don't see what went wrong. If it's possible to get highlights of that, that will be very helpful, if not, how can I find an editor who will be willing to improve my writing?

Lastly, I have 9 more articles that were recently uploaded about this entrepreneur. Can you check the list and let me know if any of these websites are considered credible enough?

http://www.globestats.com/meet-romy-johnson-who-made-3-5-crores-in-a-year-being-an-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.vernamagazine.com/2020/02/08/brilliant-entrepreneur-romy-johnson-is-helping-thousands-to-study-abroad/ http://www.fabworldtoday.com/the-incredible-success-of-the-21-year-old-entrepreneur-romy-johnson-turns-into-a-sensation-in-the-business-community/ http://www.openthenews.com/romy-johnson-youngest-indian-edtech-millionaire-entrepreneur-speaks-for-the-first-time/ http://www.usaherald.online/romy-johnson-from-a-college-student-to-successful-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.featureweekly.com/amazing-success-of-romy-johnson-catches-edtech-industry-by-surprise/ http://www.broadcastcover.com/simple-edtech-businesses-earn-romy-johnson-3-5-crores-in-a-year/ http://www.ustimesnow.com/romy-johnson-indias-talented-self-made-edtech-entrepreneur/ http://www.allnewsbuzz.com/want-to-be-a-millionaire-learn-from-romy-johnson-who-made-it-as-a-successful-edtech-entrepreneur/

Thank you for your help, I admire and respect the service that every volunteer adds to the platform and makes it possible to be maintained. Cheers!


Nayabks (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:05, 12 February 2020 review of submission by DoeEyed


Added extra references to various websites. Updated information with latest band information. DoeEyed (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


10:55:54, 12 February 2020 review of submission by TomPaveySmith


I'm looking for guidance in terms of setting up the OakNorth page. I'm an employer at the company but i've been careful to follow guidelines provided in terms of ensuring the entry is fully factual and that all key points are linked / referenced with multiple impartial sources.

Please do let me know if you're able to help.

thank you

TomPaveySmith (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article(not just "page") seems largely sourced to press release type articles, brief mentions, or routine business announcements. There's also once instance where you use Wikipedia as a source- which you should not do as Wikipedia is not a reliable source, being user-editable. Wikipedia articles should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case the definition of a notable company. These sources should have chosen on their own to give significant coverage to the company and not contain staff interviews or other routine announcements. Please read the information I have linked to here, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:26:46, 12 February 2020 review of draft by Nickkane8


I don't care to put work into this. If somebody else wants to fix it they can. Updating this info was harder than I thought it would be.

Nickkane8 (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why should anyone else care to put the work in? Topic does not appear to be notable enough for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:14, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Redokcart


Redokcart (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:05, 12 February 2020 review of submission by 47.23.95.170

Hi, This page was created taking reference from the page of Jeremy Stoppelman. Could you please re-look at it and guide on how can it be improved. The references provided includes Forbes, Reuters, Yahoo Finance and Buzzfeed. Any help would be appreciated. Thanking you. 47.23.95.170 (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are credible, however the articles on the page from those sources only mention the subject in passing, if at all. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:40:47, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Bank.jeanne

The content is based on the press release on ISO TC292 online website, but I wrote that press release and have permission to include it for the wikipedia page. Plus the information has been modified and restructured but some wording has to remain the same as it is referring to the content of a published standard so you don't want to change the wording too much

Bank.jeanne (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who wrote it, press releases are not independent sources so cannot be used. Theroadislong (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:11:11, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Bapsyata


Bapsyata (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Deleted for advertising/promotion. JTP (talk • contribs) 14:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:49:24, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Mahadi H

multiple authentic sources have been added as the reference for the support of my article on Hi-Care Group Mahadi H (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadi H You've added what seem to be brief mentions or listings, and not the significant coverage required. Your draft is also filled with promotional language("has started it's journey", "top flourishing"). If you work for this company, you must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:14:37, 12 February 2020 review of submission by Catture

I have added the full discography of the artist to the page, to prove the work of the artist. Catture (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catture The work of the artist in not in dispute, what is in dispute is if they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician and if they get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The key phrase there is "significant". That's more than a brief mention or listing. Please heed the advice you have already been given on the draft itself. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

06:09:18, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Carl Carlington

can’t figure out how to post a pic-  would like to add the one from this link

‪https://www.tapinto.net/towns/union/sections/arts-and-entertainment/articles/union-native-making-waves-on-daily-sirius-radio-and-espn-tv-shows‬

Also there are a few links in the sub categories that need to be set as references thank you

Carl Carlington (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Carlington, In most cases, with very few exceptions (logos the most common), we can't use images unless the photographer has licensed them under a free license, which allows anyone to use an image for any purpose. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:15:12, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Daphinevadhera


Hi, the article was posted six months back and after several changes due to references, lack of clarity over the Indian environment and allied issues, it has been re-submitted, the editors feel that the content is better now. Please have a look Thanks Daphinevadhera (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daphinevadhera Who are "the editors"? Only one person should be operating your account. You have submitted the draft, it will be reviewed due course; this may not happen quickly so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 331dot. The editors I was referring to were the experienced editors who helped me during the live help section. Regards. Daphinevadhera (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:14:53, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Sohaibchoco


I want to publish a new page on wikipedia about this organization Tanzeem-al-lissan. I've tried many times to publish this page but could not done. Please help me in this regard. Sohaibchoco (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Sohaibchoco[reply]

Sohaibchoco (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sohaibchoco The draft reads as a promotional listing for the organization. Any article about this organization should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the organization showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of a notable organization(please read). This does not include routine coverage, brief mentions, staff interviews, directory listings, or other primary sources. Wikipedia itself should not be used as a citation as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You may want to read Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this charity in some way, you will need to read about conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:43:37, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Marilen.buenviaje


I went to livehelp and they mentioned that the article is extremely promotional. I just need help as I am quite confused. Not trying to be promotional. but the page is about him and his accomplishments. Otherwise, without those accomplishments he is not suitable to be in the wiki ? (sorry if my understanding is wrong..i just need help as im confuse as how not to make it promotional about himself when the page is actually about himself. if not, what else to write then?... Please advise. Thanks. Marilen.buenviaje (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:15:14, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Manishsinghon


Manishsinghon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manishsinghon, for a business to have an article here, it has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources - the purpose of Wikipedia is to summarise what reliable sources have written about a subject. If this coverage doesn't exist, there can't be an article, and there is nothing we can do to make one. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:50, 13 February 2020 review of submission by Spiritletters

The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable. As I understand the guidelines. "notable" is the requirement and while accompanied with the word "sufficiently" can come off as ambiguous and unclear to the author. Currently I can find no such language in Wikipedia guidelines and rules referring to the phrase "Not Sufficiently Notable". Please assist with pointing this verbage out if I am missing something. Respectfully. Spiritletters (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi Spiritletters. You are correct that notability, as Wikipedia uses it, it binary. A person either is notable or isn't. I don't know how much thought or discussion went into the wording of that rejection message. The word "sufficiently" may have been included because the target audience (novice editors) are usually familiar only with the common definition of the term and not with the technical way Wikipedia uses it. It may also have been considered friendlier, less bitey, less as if we're saying their subject is a nobody. It may have been a nod to the fact that notability is not fixed. Someone who is not notable now may become notable later. Or the word may refer to the sufficiency of evidence. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant information about their subject. A draft that cites one or two such sources might be said to be closer to demonstrating notability than a draft that cites none.
With regard to Draft:The Toven, mostly it cites Wikipedia, which, being user-generated, is not a reliable source. The only other cited source is their website, which is not independent. So the draft cites zero of the recommended three sources. The reviewer did their own search and could not find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:54, 13 February 2020 review of draft by Udaya Thami


Udayatt 16:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Is my article name is National Thami Museum?

@Udaya Thami:, this was done as there was a previous abandoned draft with the same name. If the article is promoted to mainspace, then the name will be changed upon promotion.
Thanks, ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:43:40, 13 February 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Musicvideogod



Devarius McKinney (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Musicvideogod, firstly, I don't think he's received significant coverage in reliable sources, a prerequisite for having an article here.
Your second problem comes from the first, your sourcing is very poor. As stated by another reviewer, YouTube, Twitter, Vimeo and Instagram are not suitable sources. In order for our articles to be reliable, they have to be based on good reliable sources. See wp:rs for the guide. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is simply not notable. This is not going to change no matter how many edits your make or how many times you submit it for review. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=940646178"