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 Hasibromi (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 5 June 2020. 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, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


May 30

00:08:09, 30 May 2020 review of draft by Mtennysdotter


Not sure how to proceed or what to add. Thought I wrote the article objective but getting feedback that it's not. Can someone help me improve it? It's my first one I do. Mtennysdotter (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Mtennysdotter#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

00:12:39, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Chicago20092016


The page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fengqi_You) has been substantially revised to meet Wikipedia's rules. It is significantly shorten, and all possible violations to copyrights are removed. Could you please re-review and provide advice? Thank you!

Chicago20092016 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:British Nuclear Medicine Society

01:13:42, 30 May 2020 review of draft by Earthianyogi


Hi, This article has been declined three times, and I am not sure why it does not fulfil the notability requirements. I have read this wiki link: Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:British_Nuclear_Medicine_Society . However, I am not sure why the following list is not enough? What more an organisation needs to demonstrate enough notability? My article is very similar to another article successfully published on Wikipedia with only 10 references - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Association_of_Nuclear_Medicine

References

JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS/CONFERENCE POSTERS:

1. Competencies and training of radiographers and technologists for PET/MR imaging - a study from the UK MR-PET network" European Journal of Hybrid Imaging. 4 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/s41824-019-0070-6. ISSN2510-3636. (2020).

2. Clinical trials in molecular radiotherapy—Tribulations and Triumphs Report of the NCRI CTRad meeting held at the Lift Islington, 8 June 2018 : https://www.birpublications.org/doi/abs/10.1259/bjr.20190117?journalCode=bjr

3. Evaluation of Radiopharmaceutical Adverse Reaction Reports to the British Nuclear Medicine Society from 2007 to 2016: http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/58/12/2010.short

4. Quality assurance in myocardial perfusion tomography: a collaborative BNCS/BNMS audit programme. British Nuclear Cardiology Society/British nuclear Medicine Society. https://europepmc.org/article/med/10581589

5. A survey of nuclear cardiological practice in Great Britain https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/67/3/273.full.pdf

6. Global shortage of medical isotopes threatens nuclear medicine services BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1577 (Published 05 September 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1577

7. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence: A consensus conference organised by the British Cardiac Society, the British Nuclear Cardiology Society and the British Nuclear Medicine Society, endorsed by the Royal College of Physicians of London and the Royal College of Radiologists https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00259-003-1344-5

8. The radiation dose to ward nurses from patients having nuclear medicine investigations: https://inis.iaea.org/search/searchsinglerecord.aspx?recordsFor=SingleRecord&RN=18036859

9. Improving information for nuclear medicine department outpatients. https://europepmc.org/article/med/8047325

10. Hogg P, Holmes K. The interpretation of nuclear medicine data by non-medical health care professionals: Developments in the United Kingdom. Journal of Radiography and Diagnostic Imaging. 2000; 3: 77–85.

11. Audit of nuclear medicine scientific and technical standards: Nuclear Medicine Communications: August 2004 - Volume 25 - Issue 8 - p 771-775; https://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2004/08000/Audit_of_nuclear_medicine_scientific_and_technical.3.aspx

12. Evidence-based indications for the use of PET-CT in the United Kingdom 2016. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/27207376

13. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy: the evidence: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC2562441&blobtype=pdf

14, Setting up a myocardial perfusion scintigraphy service: clinical and business aspects. https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC1876393&blobtype=pdf

15. Guidelines for the provision of radiopharmacy support to nuclear medicine. https://europepmc.org/article/MED/12744229

16. Guidelines for the measurement of glomerular filtration rate using plasma sampling. Nuclear Medicine Communications: August 2004 - Volume 25 - Issue 8 - p 759-769. https://journals.lww.com/nuclearmedicinecomm/Abstract/2004/08000/Guidelines_for_the_measurement_of_glomerular.2.aspx

17. The new BNMS guidelines for measurement of glomerular filtration rate. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 01 Aug 2004, 25(8):755-757DOI: 10.1097/01.mnm.0000136714.77658.4a PMID: 15266168

18. Isotope shortage is limiting nuclear medicine across Europe. BMJ 2008; 337 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1575 (Published 05 September 2008) Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a1575; https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a1575.extract

19. Guidelines for the Provision of Physics Support to Nuclear Medicine; Nuclear Medicine Communications, 1999, 20, 781–787; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.6208&rep=rep1&type=pdf

20. Nuclear medicine in district general hospitals. Br Med J 1979; 2 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.6201.1336 (Published 24 November 1979)


BNMS STAFF RELATED POST:

21. BNMS Vision - British Nuclear Medicine Society". www.bnms.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

22. McCready, Ralph; Gnanasegaran, Gopinath; Bomanji, Jamshed B. (9 March 2016). A History of Radionuclide Studies in the UK: 50th Anniversary of the British Nuclear Medicine Society. ISBN25. McCready, V. Ralph (2019-11-01). "The 70th anniversary of automated radionuclide imaging". European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 46 (12): 2414–2417. doi:10.1007/s00259-019-04413-5. ISSN1619-7089.


UK GOVT

23. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/880548/ARSAC_NfG_Apr_2020.pdf

24. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/134202/bma-briefing-euratom-and-brexit.pdf


BOOKS:

25. Hamilton, David (David I.), 1951- (2011). Diagnostic nuclear medicine: a physics perspective. Springer. p.318. ISBN. OCLC1065219450.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) pg. 373

26. Sharp, Peter F. (2005). Practical Nuclear Medicine. Springer-Verlag London Ltd. p.65. ISBN. OCLC300259694.

27. Feld, Michael; Roo, Michel de (2003). History of Nuclear Medicine in Europe. p.81. ISBN.Festschrift – the Institute of Nuclear Medicine: 50 Years. 23 October 2011. ISBN. Pg 33.“The University of Leeds Review". 1987. Pg 278


REPORTS:

28. Royal College of Physician: Hybrid imaging guidance on legislative, reporting and training aspects Read the guidance". RCP London. 2016-11-25. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

29. The society of Radiographers: Covid-19 nuclear medicine recovery guidance | Society of Radiographers". www.sor.org. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

30. No-deal Brexit guidance for nuclear medicine teams | The Royal College of Radiologists". www.rcr.ac.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-05.


BLOG:

31. Nottingham University: “Far more talent than we counted on". Postgraduate Placements. 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2020-05-05.http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/postgraduateplacements/2019/10/21/far-more-talent- than-we-counted-on/

32. ECMC: https://www.ecmcnetwork.org.uk/news/announcement/cert-welcomes-support-british-nuclear-medicine-society


AWARDS:

33. The PET Centre". www.sthpetcentre.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

34. King's College London.mp4, retrieved 2020-05-29

35. IPEM > About IPEM > Prizes and Awards > IPEM Members winning external awards". www.ipem.ac.uk. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

36. https://www.uhs.nhs.uk/ContactUs/Directoryofconsultants/Consultants-by-service/Radiology-scans-and-imaging-consultants/SaadDrZia.aspx

Thank you for your help. Earthianyogi (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Earthianyogi (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthianyogi: the concerns aren't about the count of references, its about their type. Wikipedia reqires reliable independent sources for establishing notability. I haven't checked them all, but stuff written by the subject or the article (or persons working at the subject of the article are not accepted. (and btw said page has 5 references, at least 2 of them appearing reliable and independent) Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt:, thank you. I initially thought so. But when my article got rejected a couple times, I am forced to think that numbers do matter. Earthianyogi (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

01:45:06, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Watermelen


Watermelen (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my draft about Lydia Palmatier declined?

@Watermelen: As stated on Draft:Lydia Palmatier and on your user page, the draft fails to show that Palmatier is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, your family, or your friends. Its articles are not a place to express your opinions. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:04:57, 30 May 2020 review of submission by 2601:8C:C100:CE62:1150:B1CB:5D96:EC5E


This is my first complete article to be written from scratch and entered for submission. I know I am not very good at it yet, but I am trying hard to get better by taking the advice given and making the changes suggested. I feel like I might have gotten it right this time, which is why I am requesting a re-review, but I know that I need others to feel the same way for it to be able to actually be published, so please let me thank you all who have helped me for both your great patience and continued kind consideration. Thank you. 2601:8C:C100:CE62:1150:B1CB:5D96:EC5E (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:8C:C100:CE62:1150:B1CB:5D96:EC5E (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @1292simon: as the reviewer who rejected. For the talkpage: I wasn't able to check the first two sources, but for the third one could argue that it is not WP:SIGCOV. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victor Schmidt. Thanks for checking. I am happy for the article to be re-submitted now, so that someone else can review it. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:39, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Benedict2005


Im sorry if the wikipedia Article i created (The Goodwin Family) for review was not pleasing, or appropriate. However, is it ok to still work on my Article and still submit it for review if i just remove the "Place of Memorials"? The Goodwin family are in fact a significant family for the Titanic. Benedict2005 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benedict2005. Removing some small part is unlikely to transform the draft from a memorial into an encyclopedia article. The first source is a dead link. The second is a personal blog, so not a reliable source. Find-a-grave is a generally unreliable source. Encyclopedia Titanica is user-generated content, so not a reliable source either, see the WP:RSN archives. To continue working on the draft you would need to blow it up and start over from scratch, using reliable sources for history, like books from academic publishers.
Wikipedia has some articles about RMS Titanic's crew and passengers, and possibly another one could be acceptable. However, the overwhelming majority of people involved will never meet the encyclopedia's notability guidelines (inclusion criteria). Given the popularity of the topic and the number of Wikipedia editors, you can assume that articles about the most clearly notable people already exist. None of those articles is very good. Your time might be better spent improving an existing article instead of trying to create a new one. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:18:20, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Saileshkolanu

I am unable to create a biography page. Saileshkolanu (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saileshkolanu Writing an autobiographical article (not just a "page") is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, that's what social media is for. Wikipedia summarizes only what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, that of a notable creative professional like a director). If you truly meet that criteria, independent editors will eventually take note of you and your work and write about you.
Please also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:09, 30 May 2020 review of draft by Hana Moh HN


For the Draft:Nasser Al-Aswadi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nasser_Al-Aswadi Mr.1292simon put this question for me: This BLP does not include events that pass Wikipedia's notability thresholds. Does the WP:SPA author have a COI that should be disclosed? I am from Yemen, and I am interested in writing about artists in my country. This artist is a famous artist who has many artworks that you can search about and find on the internet. His exhibitions international ones. I hope you confirm it to be published. Hana Moh HN (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:17, 30 May 2020 review of submission by YiruoLiu

I was wondering why my submission was declined? I'm aware that there is already an OpenResty wikipedia page, but OpenResty and OpenResty Inc. are different things.

YiruoLiu (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YiruoLiu. As stated on Draft:OpenResty Inc. and on your user page, the draft fails to show that the company is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia), separate from the product OpenResty (which also fails to demonstrate notability, and will likely be deleted shortly). --Worldbruce (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:01, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Jackbigfan


What did i do wrong Jackbigfan (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackbigfan: Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, your family, or your friends. Its articles are not a place to promote or adulate anyone. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:50, 30 May 2020 review of submission by Amitmgosavi


Amitmgosavi (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:43:08, 30 May 2020 review of submission by RichardZack


Hello, an article submission I made was declined due to alleged notability reasons, however, multiple articles from independent sources were provided, including from TechCrunch and the Times Union, both well respected, independent publications. Can anyone help me understand why this wouldn't be considered notable?

RichardZack (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:52:49, 30 May 2020 review of submission by D.rainer

Editor said there are not enough sources. Which sources does it need for the article to be released? D.rainer (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@D.rainer: WP:NWEBSITE requires at least three reliable independent sources. Your draft currentely has two sources:
  • #1, alexa.com appears to be a directory listing, which are generally not accepted
  • #2 is the subject's own terms of use page. (which is not independent)
Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:13:21, 30 May 2020 review of submission by DenverBB

DenverBB (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC) Hi, could I please get advice on which areas of this article are causing the it to get rejected? All sources used are secondary sources not connected with the subject. All language is objective and fact-based from sources given. I would like to know what to change and how to avoid these issues on any other articles I contribute to in the future. Thank you![reply]

Your submission has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. The draft just tells about LaPedis. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable author). Your sources don't have in depth, significant coverage, they just tell things this author has done. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

05:28:26, 31 May 2020 review of submission by ChrisParker92

Can someone please take a closer look at Draft:Mark Liu? It was recently rejected for not having significant coverage but there are quite a few sources that show significant coverage of Liu, not just passing mentions. Here are a few examples which include the world's largest financial newspaper and Taiwan's Central News Agency.

Here is more significant coverage:

From what I see from the time stamps, the article was turned down four minutes after it was put up. Could that really be enough time for an editor to carefully review the sources, particularly when many of them are foreign language sources? I would appreciate another look. Thanks! ChrisParker92 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisParker92 (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my question may have slipped through the cracks. Can someone take a look at the draft please? ChrisParker92 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:32:17, 31 May 2020 review of submission by 24.229.146.136


24.229.146.136 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further as there is little to no chance it can be sufficiently improved to meet standards. It appears that the person you wrote about does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. You also do not offer independent reliable sources to support the content of the article; the article should only summarize what such sources state. Social media accounts are not independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:59:09, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Sachinlathiya007


Sachinlathiya007 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sachinlathiya007: your only source so far is [1]. Wikipedia requires at least three reliable independent sources for notability as defined by Wikipedia. I don't have an opinion on wether postnewsgroup.com is reliable, but the last reviewers, @GoingBatty and Sulfurboy: seem to concour that it is not. Note that the two references appear to be the same. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:39:05, 31 May 2020 review of draft by Pretoriandlz


I submitted Draft:Ernest_Pierce for AfC. It was declined on the grounds that it has no inline citations for the Early Life and Education section. I have since removed it and resubmitted for review. My question here is that the information provided therein was pulled from the actor's IMDB profile: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2720736/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm

Could someone elaborate if would be acceptable to cite IMDB Profile when the following non-contentious information is cited:

"Pierce was born in Chicago, Illinois, the son of Ernest Pierce Sr and Michelle Williamson.

Ernest began his career in off-Broadway and theatrical and musicals in New York and Chicago. He landed the role of Tyrone in FAME the Musical in College with the Illini Union Board Spring Musical, followed up with West Side Story. Prior to moving to Film/TV, he performed in Broadway productions such as the Son of a Preacher Man, Something’s Afoot, Death of a Salesman, The Piano Lesson and a host of others."

Thank you! Pretoriandlz (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoriandlz (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoriandlz, IMDB is not a reliable source as it uses user-generated content. As such, it should very rarely be used. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:57, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Andrej Shadura


I was told my submission has tone issues. Apparently the fact I wrote this submission prevents me from seeing them, but I paid attention to using neutral tone as much as possible. How can I improve on that?

I would also like to point out my original thought was to expand the article on Vuze to include the information on BiglyBT since in the situation when the original project is more or less dead, and continues under a new brand, it seemed like a better fit to me, but my initial addition of a paragraph on that has been reverted as an attempt to spam and I was told that not until an article on that is written and accepted, it can be re-added. I’m honestly a bit afraid of touching that article again (I did add a paragraph on the original project being dead and to be fair I expected it to be reverted just because I added it.)

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever in this case, this is not part of any promotion campaign, and to be honest it hurts quite a bit to be seen as a spammer after editing Wikipedia for many years and having proven track record of never spreading spam or being involved in any similar activity.

Andrej Shadura (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:49:30, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Anujjaju

Khushi Maheshwari is a famous social media personality from India having 5M+ followers. When People search for her name, they should have proper information about her. Like other social media personalities eg. Garima Chaurasiya, Priya Prakash Warrior this page has full potential to be added to Wikipedia. Why it is being rejected? Anujjaju (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anujjaju It appears that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about someone, and has no interest in enhancing search results for a subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, showing how they meet the Wikipedia definition of notability. Your draft had no sources at all. Please read Your First Article for more information. It does not matter if a person has five followers, or five million, or fifty million, they must be written about in independent sources to merit a Wikipedia article. Subscriber/follower numbers are easily gamed(a person can create more than one account to "like" someone) so that is not an indicator of notability. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:52:46, 31 May 2020 review of submission by 71.104.11.211


71.104.11.211 (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:55, 31 May 2020 review of draft by Indy beetle


I'm trying to review the above draft (which would be my first). I've followed all the steps laid out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script, and yet I am unable to launch the script. I'm not seeing a "More" collapsible tab under which to find the script and run it. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: Which skin are you using? Only vector (the default skin since 2013) has a "More" dropdown, for other skins the links to activate the AFC helper script are elsewhere. If that doesn't help, please check your browser console. All modern browsers (but not nessesarely the mobile versions thereof) have a feature called Console or similar. Look for things that are in red. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:20, 31 May 2020 review of draft by BoldLuis


BoldLuis (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:22, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Pn1919

We are trying to get Tom Bertram's encylopedic article on Wikipedia, but seem to keep running into issues. Please can you recommend resolutions to have an article approved.

Pn1919 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly for single person use. If you are being paid to edit this you need to declare this. Interviews, Wikipedia, Blogs, YouTube and Twitter are not suitable sources, so the draft does not shown that he is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:18:36, 31 May 2020 review of submission by EmanuelB2019

Hello, moderators and contributors to Wikipedia! I respectfully ask for the help of this world elite community to publish the page of the American writer of Romanian origin "Carmen Harra" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmen_Harra, whose books (6 books) are found in the Library of the American Congress. I published on the page the link that proves the existence of the books in the Library of Congress, at the request of the moderators to justify the creation of this page. In addition, I provided links to the page showing the writer's appearances in the Central American press, in newspapers such as the New York Post, and on television stations such as NBC New York and CBS Los Angeles. It is equally easy to verify that the writer Carmen Harra was a well-known singer in Europe in the 70s and 80s and that she currently has her own radio show at the American station OMTimes Radio. I have browsed many pages published by Wikipedia in recent years, about all kinds of people who have performed in their fields of activity and who deserve to be included in an index of the most important online encyclopedia. And I noticed that this writer, who is on the same level as other public figures on Wikipedia, does not have the page. Six months ago, I started working on this page, an absolutely new experience for me. I received valuable guidance from MurielMary and Sulfurboy on what a Wikipedia page should look like and I would like to thank them on this occasion for their help. I sent the page for moderation, and the other day, 1292simon rejected it because of the reason "promotional article". I requested arguments for this opinion, especially since other moderators appreciated that the page is written in a neutral style, specific to Wikipedia. Please help me to correct the errors on this page so that it can be published. There are many similar pages already published about the Romanian beautician Anastasia Soare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_Soare, about the Romanian singer Andreea Balan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Bălan, about the TV presenter Andreea Esca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreea_Esca and about the writer Colette Baron-Reid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colette_Baron-Reid. Wikipedia also indexes many people who have "stood out" publicly by committing abominable deeds or as mere politicians. All this information is normal to appear in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, groups information from absolutely all fields of activity. And since no one is a specialist in all areas and no one is all-knowing, it is normal to find out with Wikipedia about people we have never heard of, even though these people have been around for years and have performed in their fields. Even though we are all human and are often subjective, it is normal to recognize the professional merits of others. I call on the fairplay of the Wikipedia community to apply the same rules to all published pages. The "Carmen Harra" page reached its present form after six months of editing together with the moderators who gave their precious time to help the correct and verified presentation of the information. Please offer your contribution objectively and support me in this endeavor which is done from my exclusive position as a reader of books written by Carmen Harra. Thank you and I look forward to your feedback! EmanuelB2019 (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:01, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Triantares

Dear reviewers, I'm sorry but I'm at a loss now. You mention there are still WP:PROMO issues there which I don't see at all...nor any WP:COI as I am not in anyway affiliated with said distribution other than being an avid user and having volunteered to edit and re-submit the English WP entry which had been deleted for some reason a while back. If anything the only thing that can be done (in the sense of less WP:PROMO) now IMO is delete the whole entry, which would be kind of silly considering that the Elive Linux distribution has been around for at least 15 years and certainly should be mentioned and linked as such together with other distributions. Looking and comparing with other WP entries concerning (especially commercial) Linux distributions: They might as well all be removed with even more promotional issues and COIs than the current Elive submission IMO. Notably EliveLinux is the only distribution that does not have an internal link here and hereList_of_Linux_distributions#Third-party_distributions and there's definitely more.

I do agree that the links in the article might be a little overdone, in the sense that they're too many and distracting. To some degree that was due to a first review pointing out too few reliable 3rd party references.

It would be greatly helpful if the issues could be clearly pointed out as, like I stated I do not see them and certainly do not want to keep making the same mistakes in other entries or articles. Thanks in advance, any guidance will be greatly appreciated.


Triantares (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:51, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Marcywinograd


Marcywinograd (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and wondering about redirects. I noticed that articles that have a lot of page views (many thousands) are redirects from topics that do not have a Wikipedia page. If I want to redirect from an unpublished Wikipedia topic (decarceration) similar to my Wikipedia entry (Decarceration in the United States), do I need to 1) Create a new page for Decarceration 2) Go to page settings and redirect that page to my page: Decarceration in the United States 3)Submit that redirection/page for approval, as though I am submitting a real article that an administrator will have to approve? Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Warm regards, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcywinograd: as far as I can see you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMED, so you can yust go on and create the redirect page. You don't need an approval. You can find the policy regarding redirects at Wikipedia:Redirect. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Victor, for your prompt reply. I did read the Redirect page and tried to figure it out, but am confused as to how to redirect from an unpublished topic, like "prison inmate reduction" to "decarceration in the United States" which is published. As an autoconfirmed user, what do I do? Thank you for your patience. Best wishes, MarcyMarcywinograd (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:35:11, 31 May 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yellowmajestymusic


Dear Wikipedia,

I need help with publishing an article 'Yellow Majesty'. The article describes my music project and I don't know how to fullfil all the requirements needed in order to get the article published. Any further (explicit) assistance would thus be highly appreciated!

Thank you in beforehand.

Amir Yellowmajestymusic (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero sources, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged and you would need to pass the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN first. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:56, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Mye


I am preparing an article about a Ukrainian processing company existing since 1995. Previously, only the Ukrainian version of the page existed. But now we are working with foreign clients, and it would be more correct to have information in different languages

Tanks usb31 18:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:Mye#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:21:59, 31 May 2020 review of submission by Jschwam

The article was declined because of lack of sport notability criteria, but did not specify which line was problematic, and what kind of source would be more accurate and be able to pass the criteria. Please advise. Thank you! Jschwam (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jschwam: If Wikipedians are talking about notability, its usally not a specific line of the draft or article, but rather the sources used. in this case, @Robert McClenon: stated on Draft:Michael Kraus (lacrosse) that WP:NSPORTS isn't met (click the blue link to find out the criteria). I am not an expert at sportlers notability, and, as such, don't have an opinion on the notability, but it would help if you indicated which of the notability guidelines you used. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jschwam User:Victor Schmidt - The issue isn't what line is problematic or an issue with any particular source. For sports notability, there is a long list of notability criteria, one for which sport, but there isn't a criterion for field lacrosse. So to accept a field lacrosse player, they must either satisfy general notability, or one of the criteria in the sports notability list must apply. I didn't see a criterion that applies. So the issue isn't what was wrong with the submission, but what wasn't right with the submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My advice about field lacrosse would be that lacrosse fans can form a task force to add a special notability criterion for lacrosse players. I don't have any other advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, it isn't what was wrong; it was what wasn't right. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 1

06:15:46, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Gidicloud


Gidicloud (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking based on my first article which I wrote now it was declined, I want to asked what exactly is the problem, was the article not good enough and what can I do to make it approved

@Gidicloud: Your draft currently cites two sources:
As such, the draft doesn't meet WP:NWEBSITE and cannot be approved in its current version. The criteria for websites are, in short, that multiple, reliable independent sources are cited in the article/draft. Note that it is important that such sources are given in the draft, asserting their existence without having them in there wont make a draft approved. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:22:07, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Sachi1307


Hello, Could you let me know if the list of product looks like a advertisement, but there are other Articles listing of product which are not deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XP-PEN

Sachi1307 (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi1307 Please read other stuff exists. It is usually 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. In addition, as time passes, standards change and what was once acceptable may not be any longer. Your draft looks like an advertisement because it just tells about the company and its products. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage(not brief mentions, routine announcemments, staff interviews, etc.) say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable company).
If you know of other inappropriate articles, please point them out so they can be addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for letting me know, I will revise it and resubmit again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachi1307 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:07:37, 1 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by DominicanWikiEdit1996


I'm requesting assisstance because I have edit several draft of a page and it keeps getting declined. It's a draft about a bachata group's album call "We Got Next" from Xtreme. This album was released in 2003 and there's barely information about it because the album didn't have notoriety at the time. The group never really mentioned a lot about the album because they were later on signed to a record label and then their 2005 album became know as their debut album. I've put in references and extra links to prove that the article is accurate, but it still gets rejected.

This is the link to the draft: Xtreme - We Got Next (Album)

DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DominicanWikiEdit1996 I answered you at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies 331dot, that was done by mistake. I didn't realize I had send it twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:09, 1 June 2020 review of submission by VidhyadhariK


Dear Team,

I just got to know the Draft:Chaithra Rai, got a mail saying that my article submission was declined, I what to the reason for rejection and also what to know what I am missing and in what criteria I have to improve my self and the data to be added resubmission.

VidhyadhariK (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:46:28, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Luca929


Luca929 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've never written a wikipedia page before so I am very clueless at what I am doing. I was tasked with doing for someone I know, thinking it would be simple but I was wrong.

@Luca929:

14:02:38, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Newlywo

hello, I do not understand how Mr Isaac isnt notable.. we are talking about an Israeli journalist, editor and presenter on the biggest most viwed channel in Israel and mostly, a known personallty in Israel. There 5 Links and 19 References. I'm asking for a fair and new review to be made. Thank you.

Newlywo (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:38:00, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Amkgp


Amkgp (talk) 13:438, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Dear Team, I've never written a Wikipedia page before. In fact, I got a warning before, for editing in Article Space without trying a sandbox edit. so I am very clueless about what I am doing. Now I got a review from Amkgp(Wikipedia member) that my article creation was disappointing. I am sorry for this action. Actually My idea was creating a company page article. But I don't know about the full editing about the article creation. Can you give me the solution for creating this page? Thank you in Advance.

(Note) This subject appears to be inside the the cryptocurrency area, which is currently under general sanctions. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Riyasteve: You may go through Help:Your first article, and keep in mind what Victor Schmidt has pointed out. Its very important. You can always ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thank you

15:07:21, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Luca929


This is my first time creating a Wikipedia page. Can anyone give advice or assist on how to get this published? Luca929 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s actually your second time creating a Wikipedia page, as this Draft:Treo (Drink) was also rejected. The topics are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


15:32:53, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Amanniste


I would request a second look by an editor who might be more familiar with the subject of art as far as determination of notability is concerned

Amanniste (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:53:59, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Himanshuaroraa

Hi, I was trying to create an article for someone I know, I wrote content and added citations. but I did some mistakes, Now I am trying to figure out where I can make some improvements to get it live on Wikipedia. I got permission from Itsanupkumar. I do not what citations could be more reliable to Wikipedia. I request you to help me with this. Information I am providing is hundred per cent genuine. What tone can be acceptable?

This article has one more copy on Wikipedia as a draft. Can you also remove that and consider this?

Himanshuaroraa (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:31:31, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Nasimarad


Nasimarad (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Please somebody help me! I've tried many ways to put this article on Wikipedia which is about a really professional man but every time someone rejects it and I don't know why. If you know how I can fix this and if you can help me please do me a favor and contact me. I'm new in Wikipedia and I don't know why it is so hard to put a single article about someone's personal & professional life.

19:11:56, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Mye


Volunteering

question icon

Hello Worldbruce

No i don't get any pay for trying to create this article. I have been working in this company for a long time (more than 19 years) and recently discovered that we don't have normal information on the Ukrainian wikipadia, and in general there is no page in the English version. I have no relation to the PR team or something like that, but I always like to see quality information. I act here as a volunteer, and as a person who knows the history of the company

My contribution to the wiki is so small that I don’t think anyone would be interested in my personal story on Mye profile. Although after you pointed out its absence, the thought of its creation was born.

usb31 19:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


19:41:49, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Caryplace7


I wrote a biography on Mike Greenhaus, Editor-in-Chief of Relix Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) I have been working on the biography for several weeks and it has been looked at by several editors. Last week an editor said I had enough articles (3) to show notability and that I should resubmit. However, another editor just rejected the claim of notability How do I proceed?

Caryplace7 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:56:58, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Yoshiiiiiii


I am asking for a re-review because I added more context to who SOUL was and provided better citations to provide further context. Yoshiiiiiii (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:31:49, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Dylan Hendricks

I started this article on my own and have a draft page started, but I want to know how to add specific collaborators to my draft so we can work on it together. Dylan Hendricks (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:39:35, 1 June 2020 review of submission by Belltown9

Hi there: I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble with this page.

For what little it's worth, I'm on the board of The Rock Poster Society, and have written extensively on rock-poster artists at Collectors Weekly and elsewhere. I've also curated rock-poster exhibitions, such as this one at SFO Museum.

The problem with an artist like the late John Moehring, who I got to know before his death, is that the Seattle rock-poster artists in the late 1960s never got the attention and press from mainstream, traditional media outlets like their counterparts in San Francisco. As a result, their contributions have gone largely unsung. I have tried to correct that by contributing to a book on the subject, by writing about John, and by building a Wikipedia page in his memory. Collectors know how rare and valuable this work is, which is why I linked to a recent auction where many pieces went for above their high estimates. I have also linked to references to John (albeit passing ones) in publications by the University of Washington Press and testimony by Art Chantry. I even posted a link to all the John Moehring posters in the collection of the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle.

There will never be a reference to John in Time or Newsweek or anything like that, so how does this important '60s psychedelic rock-poster artist get his Wikipedia page? Again, forgive me, but I'm stumped.

Best, Ben Marks Belltown9 (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2020 review of submission by Cdg1072

Sam-2727 advises that I seek another opinion about my article the Change of Fortune Paradox, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Change_of_fortune_paradox. He suggested I point out the fact that it went through several declines, although this was because I resubmitted a few times. Subsequent to that string of submissions, finally some needed changes were actually suggested, and now those changes have been made. For example, theoretical views cited in the article are now attributed directly to their authors in all cases, not synthesized as plain declarative facts. Second, all the several theories (except one!) in the article are now at least linked to a third party, who mentions each view somewhere else--each viewpoint is tied to another secondary source. In accordance with that, the theories presented are being treated as primary sources--not secondary ones. If they were secondary sources, then they wouldn't need a secondary source to back them up. I would mention that there are numerous other Wikipedia articles that rely on primary sources too much. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche%27s_views_on_women

The other main problem with the Change of Fortune Paradox, at least in Sam-2727's opinion, is the structure. I'm surprised he's still unhappy with the structure. He seems to feel that the straight listing of a series of views on a problem, is too plodding and dull, as a structure. Sam-2727 doesn't state clearly that this is the problem, but I don't know what else he means. However, many Wikipedia articles that have no problem with structure, have this same structure. For example, the one I just showed you, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche%27s_views_on_women, and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor.Cdg1072 (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


22:14:00, 1 June 2020 review of draft by Honeymaidgrahamcrackers


Hey! What does it mean when you say that there isn't significant coverage?

Honeymaidgrahamcrackers (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Honeymaidgrahamcrackers:, hi there. One of the requirements source(s) need to show notability is a certain level of depth. This is fairly flexible, but it means that 2 good sources all about the subject is better than 20 short ones.
As to what lets a source meet "sig cov", there's room for dispute, but I use 10 lines, not counting quotes. You'd want a couple of sources that met that criterion Nosebagbear (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2

Request on 01:21:11, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Caryplace7


Hello I have been trying for a few weeks to publish a bio of Journalist Mike Greenhaus, Editor-in-Chief of Relix Magazine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mike_Greenhaus) This is my first bio, though I have added references and edit over 100 other articles, so I am still learning how to do this properly. I have gone few a few drafts with a few editors after being denied and have been able to successfully clear that there is no conflict of interest and that I have enough independent third-party sources focused on the subject to make this worthy of acceptance. However user Chris just denied by post within minutes of my posting it. Chris' comments suggested that a majority of the references I cited were by the subject I was writing about when in fact NONE of the links are by him, nor from the magazine he edits (expect the masthead as proof of his current position) The four articles I cited as best references had all been cleared as OK by another editor and are focused specifically on the subject of my bio. In addition, the other articles cite him as an expert reference which according to my research is the type of articles that should be included as proof of notability. I understood I have perhaps too many references; I was trying to balance a mix of articles focused solely on Mr. Greenhaus with citations on his work from larger references. Please let me know how I can improve. Thank you so muchCaryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caryplace7 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:58:09, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Acham


Not sure why the many references "do not establish notability" for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_McNamara_(sportswriter)

"During his life, McNamara was a prolific journalist, covering sports and news in Maryland. He had written and edited for the St. John's College High School Sabre newspaper, the University of Maryland College Park Diamondback newspaper,[1] the Washington Post, the Hagerstown Herald-Mail, the Prince George's County (MD) Journal[2] and The Capital[3] in Annapolis, MD. He wrote three books on sports prior to his death,[4] and appeared as a guest commentator on line for the Washington Post,[5] and on radio on the Rick "Doc" Walker" show, and with Johnny Holliday to discuss Baltimore Orioles, and Washington Nationals baseball and on the Maryland Sports Radio Network. McNamara was a voter[6] in the Associated Press Top 25 NCAA basketball poll.[7] He won several awards for his writing from the Maryland - DC - Delaware Press Association. [8]"

I provided info on 4 books, on-line commentary, and multiple radio appearances. Can you provide specifics for what you need to establish notability? Of course, there are references are to his own writing, as would be the case for most journalists. However, 4 books, multiple interviews of him including in the Washington Post, and hundreds of articles that he wrote, would seemingly meet your qualifications. I am sure I have what you need, but I am having trouble imagining what else to include. Thank you.

Acham (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:20:41, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Nova9944

I finished a userspace draft and clicked the "submit your draft for review" button. There was no indication as to whether it was submitted or not. Also I do not know how I will receive your reply so please email me if possible. Nova9944 (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at WP:HD. @Nova9944: please don't ask the same question at two different places. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:54:29, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachi1307


I don't understand how to make it into an Article, different reviewers have different suggestion. Firstly, there are no any advertisement, and then it create by others with a draft not a article, why can I not create to be an article. Who can guide me how to do it？

Sachi1307 (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:40, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RiHuang

Could you please review it? I provided all the correct and authentic information! Thank you! RiHuang (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:45:13, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RixiangH

How can I revise it to be able to pass? RixiangH (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


06:46:06, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Armonia3i


Can someone please point to specific changes to make, so that the draft shifts to a more neutral perspective ?

(Quick background and disclaimer: my first car will probably be a Škoda Citigo iV; as such, I’ve searched Wikipedia for a summary of car and services information, only to find that there is very little available, so I proposed this dedicated wiki article to contain specific information about the features of each of their services/apps; I’m not connected with Škoda Auto in any way, but I have contacted their support email with questions.)

I already attempted to make it strictly factual, by summarising and referencing hour-long presentations, and official press releases (available services, exact features of each app, public statements on the brand’s future plans). Would referencing second-hand articles (that replicate this same information) actually aid give a more neutral perspective? Are there specific statements that seem speculative or advertorial?

The article seems to me to have a similar structure as other brands’ in the same electro-mobility category, like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_i but yes, arguably more focused on a future owner or interested party than the general public.

Would contacting someone from the Transportation WikiProject help to get another perspective, and better alignment with existing pages for EV families?

Armonia3i (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armonia3i by basing the draft on hour-long presentations, and official press releases and the like, you are going in exactly the wrong direction. Such presentations and releases are produced by the company, and naturally give the most positive view of the product possible. A Wikipedia article should be based primarily on Independent published reliable sources, sources that have no connection with the company and no interest in whether the product does well or poorly. They should also be professionally published, not fan or personal sites. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:47:34, 2 June 2020 review of submission by RIXIANGHUANG

Could you help me? I don't know why my wiki page is not approved. RIXIANGHUANG (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RIXIANGHUANG Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia does not have "wiki pages", it has articles typically written by independent editors. Please review the autobiography policy for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:38, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Kcsnooker


I am new to Wikipedia and have a basic question

I would like to create an article about myself. It does meet the notability requirement. I have submitted a draft with article name "Kamal Chawla", but not sure if it will get rejected due to Conflict of Interest. If so, what is the best way to get the article published?

Kcsnooker (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are notable enough you'll need to have citations from independent websites, newspapers, books or radio. Generally, you can't make articles about yourself, I'm not an expert but I know you'll need lots of citations for the size of your article. Maybe consider copying and pasting it onto your user page? Freyr Brown (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:53:54, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Freyr Brown


Hi, My article was recently rejected and now (after looking at some articles about notability and citations) I understand why it was rejected. I've now taken the time to get citations from newspapers, books, online newspapers and independent websites. I have cited lots of those and now I'm curious whether that will be enough. I'm also questioning if the amount of information there is online, makes it notable enough. I've found info from a lot of big newspapers and I think it should hopefully be good enough as a topic but I'm very new to all this and I'm not quite sure. I don't know exactly what my question is but if there's anything anybody could tell me that'd be great, thanks! Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freyr Brown As you were informed by the reviewer, lower level schools are not typically notable according to Wikipedia's definition. Articles must do more than tell about the subject(as yours does); they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. Your draft just tells that the school exists and some things it offers. Note that even a school where a horrific shooting occurred, Sandy Hook Elementary School, does not merit a Wikipedia article(though the event does). There needs to be a great deal of significant coverage- coverage that goes beyond mere mentions, routine announcements, or just confirmation that the school exists- for a school itself to merit an article. For example, a school that is housed in a historic building that has been written about in that context. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:37, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Agnieszkasek


Agnieszkasek (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your feedback regarding the Tools Up! Wikipedia page draft. I have some questions to ask in order to make sure that the next version of the article will fit the Wikipedia standards better. 1) The feedback mentions that the article "appears to read more like an advertisement" - could you explain which parts of the text read like that? 2) "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed" - which sources do you deem unreliable? All listed articles are published and available online. Moreover, none of the sources is a material produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. I'm looking forward to your reply. Thank you for your time. Best!

Agnieszkasek The "Gameplay" section in particular reads as if it came from a company promotion, and in any case Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or game guide. The "Reception" section, which lists only positive reviews and reactions, also seems a bit promotional For example, the revieew from Destrutoid (Currently Ref 1) says "To sum it up, there are hints of greatness. But just hints." but no hint of this modified rapture appears in the article, it is merely listed as "positive". No actual quotes from reviews are used. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 13:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:52:47, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Clifffyle2014


Cliff 12:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

14:18:03, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103

I have edited the content to be unbiased and added the review page from GreatNonprofits as a reference. Arebello103 (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


14:29:27, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Arebello103

I would like a re-review because WAA is an authentic organization, and I have edited the article to be unbiased and more informative, with additional sources other than the WAA website. Arebello103 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arebello103: If it has not been featured in any notable publications to this point, as your draft states, then it will not be accepted. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS

I am asking assistance for a question, here is the question: How do you request for an editor?Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC) 14:53:52, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS[reply]

Replied below, at #11:22:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:01:48, 2 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Saalves

16:01:48, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Saalves {{SAFESUBST:Void| 

I have many reliable sources which I cited in the text using <ref> <ref>  I thought this meant that this code would populate the notes section. Not sure what is my next step. I checked how to cite my sources but I must not understand something important. Please help.


Saalves (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saalves You need to use a pair of <ref>...</ref> tags, not the / character on the closing tag. Withotu this they do not work correctly. Also:
  • Please refer to the subject by last mname only ("Smith" note "Janet Marie Smith") after the initial mention in the lead section, unless another person named smithy is also being referred to, and this would cause confusion.
  • Please read referencing for beginners. Please provide the title of each source you cite, and where that source is part of a larger work (such as a newspaper, magazine, or website), please provide the name of that work as well. Please provide the date if publication when known. Please provide the author when known. Please list the publisher when this would help the reader.
  • Section headers should be surrounded by paired double equals signs (==Header here==) for top level headers, and triple equals for 2nd level headers (===Second level here===). Headers should be in sentence case, not all caps. Only the first word is capped except for proper names or other things that would be capitalized in running prose. See WP:SECTION.
  • Please note that since Smith worked/works for MLB, sites run by MLB are not Independent sources, which are needed to establish notability.
I hope that helps a bit. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:28, 2 June 2020 review of submission by The Cat 2020

Hi, Who gets to decide whether the article is notable or not? I wrote an article about one of the greatest female philosophers of India. I presented citation of the moral sentences which are timeless. I wrote an article and the some reviewer made factually incorrect statements about it which resulted in the rejection of my draft. My article is written in strict accordance to the rules of English and Wikipedia. The citation is properly attributed, all the works used are properly listed. I met with clear bias towards my article from the very beginning when somebody incorrectly called it "an essay". Then somebody decided to make factually incorrect statements about the references and attribution. Now the final person wrote that, "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." If this is the final verdict then the person who wrote this must read a few things about Sir William Jones and his Asiatic Researches who I referenced in my article.He should also read a thing or two about the Asiatic Society and the mythology. Then he should consult Godfrey Higgins and Frederic Shoberl who wrote about Avyar in their works and cited her moral sentences. Are those persons are not notable enough as well? All the references to the works cited and/or used are clearly mentioned, attributed and listed along with the page numbers for your convenience. Finally, the phrase "The subject probably is notable, but this draft does not establish notability." clearly has a double meaning which is unacceptable. It is the polite but an unacceptable way of saying that my material is not welcome on Wikipedia. You should write a bulletin and state what people can or can't add to so-called free encyclopedia. You shouldn't exercise bias toward any material. You shouldn't block an important material from being published. You shouldn't provide false and factually incorrect statements toward the article itself when the facts presented are showing the opposite. I stand by the fact that my article is written in strict accordance to all the rules. The notability of the person has clearly established and the sources with great reputation are listed to prove that. Facts are on my side but the factually incorrect statements were made against me and my material. The latest statement is just a way of saying that my material is great but you are unable to publish it. No real reason for the rejection has been provided so far.

The Cat 2020 (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment on your draft, it will need to be completely re-written before it can be re-submitted, it has too much inappropriately written content which I have high lighted for you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:32, 2 June 2020 review of submission by Naijaactive


Naijaactive (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


20:01:27, 2 June 2020 review of draft by Mrjava2019


My draft that i wanted to publish got declined beacause the references was not enough and i was told that i need more footnotes. Could you please specify or mark witch statements that need footnotes so that i can apply them? Mrjava2019 (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


23:26:29, 2 June 2020 review of draft by DonGuess


I have a problem with a pdf source, it's written in red letters in the "references" section so it's easy to see DonGuess (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done There was, as the error message said, a line feed (newline) in the middle of the title, DonGuess. Now please add citation metadata, such as the name of the publication, the date, the author (if known) and so on. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

04:59:55, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Lifedoory

I have edited to avoid promotional content. Our wikipedia page also has published on Wikipedia Bahasa Indonesia https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cakap

Lifedoory (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lifedoory: who is "our"? Wikipedia accounts are for singlee-person-use only. Different Wikipedias are seperate projects with their own rules, so the existence of an article in one Wikipedia cannot be cited as a reson to include it in a different one. At least two of the current references are not independent, the first and the last one. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:12, 3 June 2020 review of draft by Terminatorwil


Could you help me understand why the wikipedia page did not get approved as there were enough citation in it.

Terminatorwil (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Terminatorwil. Some of the draft's sources, namely MSN, Radio and Television Magazine, Al-Wafd, and Saudi Gazette are generally reliable within their domains. I don't speak enough Arabic to judge whether specific pages from those outlets are independent (e.g. not press releases or churnalism), reliable (e.g. not editorial or opinion), and significant coverage. The reliability of the draft's other sources, Destination, Al Roeya News, elsaba7.com, Business Transformation, and The Modern East, is unclear. The draft would make a somewhat more favourable impression if you eliminated or replaced the questionable sources.
More fundamentally, Emara's accomplishments are unlikely to impress reviewers. Motivational speakers who give workshops on positive energy and have won obscure awards of dubious notability just don't stack up well against academics the likes of B. F. Skinner, Steven Pinker, or George Armitage Miller. Any draft about Emara is liable to sound promotional. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:06:28, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Rahulraop

Dynamo is a public star and i think his info should be included on wikipedia.

Rahulraop (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the draft that he meets any of the criteria at WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:11, 3 June 2020 review of submission by VaJaMe


VaJaMe (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VaJaMe: this draft is largely the same as the company website, and therefore, fails Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. It largely uses the company's website as a source and therefore also fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia articles should be based mostly on stuff others have written about the subject in reliabe sources, not what the subject has writen or said about itself. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:19:23, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Dupontdupontdupont


Hello, I would need some help to publish the article I started to write about Royal Limoges, the oldest Limoges porcelain manufacture still in activity. My article was refused for edition because of a lack of sources. There are many more sources in French but not that many in English. Can you help me to publish this new page?

Dupontdupontdupont (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, but they do need to be independent reliable sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:25:30, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rakesh862


Hi, I am looking to create a page for an elder care service in Chennai. I have already made two drafts of the page and they were declined. I have used only verified sources. Can you please help me on what are the topics or sections need to be included for this page? The page is about a startup that provides elder care.

Also, please tell me what kind of sources I need to consider.

PS: I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first time making a page. 

Thank you Rakesh862 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh862 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh862 You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage, and the article (not just "page") should only summarize what those sources say. The sources you have offered are press release type articles or brief mentions. Please also read the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company to ensure this company meets it. If you are associated with this company in any way, you must read and formally comply with the paid editing and conflict of interest policies. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS

How do you become an editor/become an Wikipedian? I want to join, but i might get confused alot. I might need explanations about things i need to know and i don't know how. I have an editor already, but i don't know how to do things, i'm still a newbie in Wikipedia/here. Thank you!---- (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


---- (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natalia Prislonova Ordenador ASUS. Being a successful Wikipedian is 90% reading and 10% editing. The links in the welcome box on your user talk page are a good place to start. Concentrate on improving existing articles instead of trying to start new ones, until you are experienced. A good place to find ways to help is Wikipedia:Community portal.
You may be able to get more specific advice if you describe in a few sentences on your user page your skills, interests, and resources. Many tasks require a high degree of fluency in English, but some can be done with limited English. A few require a command of another language. Access to good libraries, especially ones at world-class research universities, is very helpful. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:50, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Iayaz


Hi , i have written this page about an industrial area which is famous in punjab. Major development work has been completed . I have added 6 refrences for verification of its notability .Please review Iayaz (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:39, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Theonetwoandthree


I submitted 'the Balkans' and was then asked to add more evidence, I resubmitted it with further evidence but was declined again. I can't see anywhere any numerical requirement that says a certain number of sources should be provided. I've followed all the help pages and still, it is declined. Would someone please be able to help me get this page to abide by the rules if it does not already do so. Im happy to provide any further evidence but I'm sure that cant be the issue. Many thanks Theonetwoandthree (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Theonetwoandthree (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Amazon are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:48:00, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Shahmohammadimehran


I wrote this article about Mahyar Shadorvan, a musician, singer, and teacher of Persian traditional music. Due to the focus of his activities in Persian local and traditional music, most of references existing about him are in Persian language. I wonder if rejection of my article is due to tone of writing or because of the references used. In training Persian vocal music, he is considered as one of the most known in Iran's capital. He was educated under well known vocal musician of Iran, including Mohammad Reza Shajarian, and Mohsen Keramati. He has professional and dedicated albums and books to learning and deepening the understanding of mixing vocal and music and poem in Persian

So I appreciate if I can get a feedback on why my article was rejected and how I can show the importance of this article.


Thanks, Mehran Shahmohammadi

Shahmohammadimehran (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahmohammadimehran: Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, at that would mean circularity. refs #7 and #8 are unnesesary, and can be moved to an "external links" section if they adhere to the external links policy (they probbably don't). This draft uses puffery words like great and various. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:08, 3 June 2020 review of draft by MVP2020


Hello, What do I need to do so that my draft: Meike Peters will be reviewed? Thanks a lot!

MVP2020 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MVP2020 You simply need to submit it for review by clicking the blue button at the bottom of the grey review box at the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

15:35:40, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Jeet Nakum


Jeet Nakum (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeet Nakum: Wikipedia isn't an how-to-guide. You may want to look at WP:YFA to see what we expect from new articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:08, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Saalves

For security reasons and to protect her privacy, I did not put in her birth date of December 13 and only put in her year of birth. The reviewer put in her birth date. How can I respond to the reviewer? I'm fine with changes for accuracy, better sentence structure or word choice.

Saalves (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saalves:You can talk to @Amkgp: on User talk:Amkgp, which is his user talk page and intended to leave him a message. In this case, I have sent him a notification about this discussion, so he will probbably respond here, as discussions should not be splitted across multiple pages. Howewer, as stated in the decline notice, there is probbably a bit more work to do to bring this to a state where it can be moved to mainspace. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt and Saalves:, I have not interfered with the draft except reviewing. You can verify from the diffs. See diff1 and diff2. The edit what Saalves is asking may be referring to this. Please address the issue to the concern person. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Theroadislong and DESiegel: can provide additional inputs regarding the problems with the draft. Thank you. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saalves Your accusation seems to be wrong I think. After scrutiny I found complete dates were provided by you. None of the reviews, editors or commentators have added it. See the 2nd paragraph here of your version. ~ Amkgp ✉ 17:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever added the exact date of birth to the draft, it should not be there as per WP:DOB unless there is cited evidence that it has been widely published outside of Wikipedia, or published by or with the obvious consent of the subject, such as on the subject's own website, or by the subject in an interview. In most cases the year of birth is enough to provide context, to place the person in their proper time. The Wikipedia style, as shown at MOS:BIRTHDATE, is to use John Smith (Born 1958) not Joan Smith (1958-) because the latter form can be mistaken to mean that the person is dead but the date of dfeath si not known, or not reliably sourced. @Saalves, Amkgp, Victor Schmidt, and Theroadislong: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:57:27, 3 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Kb vision



Kb vision (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kb vision: no independent citations, no article. In addition, you are using a Username that implies its representing a group which is not permitted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:42:32, 3 June 2020 review of submission by Bobkuzi

I have made some edits to the article, after it was initially declined. Could you please let me know if this is suitable for posting on Wikipedia, or if you have any specific advice on what I can do to edit it? Thank you! Bobkuzi (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobkuzi. Rejection is meant to convey that the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia). No amount of editing can fix that problem, so volunteers do not intend to review the draft again. Wikipedia may not be used for any kind of advertising, promotion, or public relations. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:04, 3 June 2020 review assistance needed - Indy beetle


I'm able to launch the script to review this draft, but for some reason it will not let me "Accept" the submission. When I click it nothing happens. It does give me options for commenting or rejecting though. Either the script is useless or I am. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also having the same issue with Draft:Simeon Farr. Theroadislong (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:55:38, 3 June 2020 review of submission by EditorF


EditorF (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignite India is inspired by Honourable Former President of India Dr. Abdul Kalam’s vision of “India  Beyond 2020”. Our aim is to fulfil his vision by empowering society and transforming India into a developed nation through education. We Design, Management and Technology professionals manage this initiative and help in providing quality education in the view of producing a new generation of creative, innovative and Ignited minds.


Website - https://www.igniteindiaedu.com/ Youtube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSaHYcKbTZViku1Olq_vSQA Instagram - www.instagram.com/ignite_india


NEWS Links 1. - https://indiaeducationdiary.in/children-to-paint-their-imagination-of-clean-ganga-this-environment-day/

2.https://www.thestatesman.com/india/young-sparkling-minds-shine-apj-abdul-kalam-ignite-awards-2019-1502831357.html

3.https://www.deccanchronicle.com/science/science/150117/innovators-mission-to-ignite-abdul-kalams-vision.html

4.https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/politics/160619/anand-bhaskar-rapolu-proposes-to-declare-kalams-birthday-as-national.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorF (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EditorF, Your draft have been declined because of these following problems: (1) The tone of draft is totally WP:PROMOTIONAL which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. (2) Usage to WP:BAREURLS needs to be avoided. If you are not sure how to cite reference visit WP:REFB (3) Usage of words like 'our' and 'we' makes us to believe that the editor is closely connected to the subject and should comply with WP:COI terms. (4) In infobox website is of organization is mentioned as "http://www.nift.ac.in/" which a Government of India funded education institution. How is it connected to IGNITE INDIA missing. ~ Amkgp ✉ 19:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The user has updated the draft and also changed the website. Its still WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~ Amkgp ✉ 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:55, 3 June 2020 review of submission by River44116

Please give us a more detailed explanation of why we were declined and how can fix this. We would like for Organic Spa Media to have a wikipedia page and these articles were submitted from an event held by the company. River44116 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you submitted were some external links, that does not constitute an article. Theroadislong (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hello, River44116. The page User:River44116/sandbox currently has as its only content a URL linking to a page of an online magazine, one filled with ads by the way, apparently including a story about an event. It is not at all clear if you intend to write about the event, the magazine, or the event's sponsor.
A Wikipedia article about a topic must consist primarily of original prose describing that topic in a neutral manner. It must establish and demonstrate the notability of the topic. In the case of a corporation or similar organization, it should meet our guideline on the notability of corporations. The usual way to do this is to include citations to multipl professionally published reliable sources that are independent of the organizatio0n and of each other, that si they are not business affiliates of the subject, nor are they working from a press release, nor is the content largely an interview with the subject or a spokesperson for the subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


June 4

00:13:11, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Jackie Kench


When I submitted the draft, it said I can't use sites such as Youtube for resources. However, the companies used as a resource don't put a lot of their work on their websites but on their Youtube channels instead. For example, I used the Bovis Homes company (which is a professional company) as a resource. When I went on their website, hardly any of their adds are on there but instead on their Youtube channel, so did Firebird Films, 4Ground Media, and many other professional companies. That doesn't make it any less professional, they purposefully wanted the advert made specifically for their channel. So, what do you do when professional companies do professional work strictly for their social media only?

I also put an Amazon link for books that are currently being sold, and I was told that that's not a reliable source. I put a link to the author's page where she is actually selling her books. That in itself is proof that she's selling books.

Even though she's done professional work, it's hard into today's world to find examples that are not linked to social media. I've attached better links but as I mentioned before, they're not directly linked to Madeline because the companies aren't putting them on their sites but on their channels instead, channels that I'm not allowed to use. So I haven't submitted because I have a feeling it'll be denied.

Jackie Kench (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Kench Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that are shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(such as the definition of a notable company or a notable person). If a subject is not written about significantly in independent sources, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Social media accounts are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:11:15, 4 June 2020 review of submission by EditorF


EditorF (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


02:45:58, 4 June 2020 review of submission by 216.174.74.87


216.174.74.87 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


05:25:08, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Jimavich


I was wondering how I find out which sources used do not meet standard - and if others have met the standard. Or if all my sources are inadequate Jimavich (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimavich, Hi, well the first ref has some errors (see the red comments in the ref list) and the second one is self-published... you will need to correct this and perhaps add some more 2nd sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

07:55:50, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Hakkeem11988


Hakkeem11988 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkeem11988 Your draft(which I've removed from here, the link makes putting it here unnecessary and disruptive to this page's formatting) was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, and you have offered no independent reliable sources showing how the person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:53, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Princesse Marissa


dear all, kindly to advise how to improve my article so it can resubmitted and approved by wikipedia reviewer, waiting for your assistance. Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princesse Marissa (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:02, 4 June 2020 review of submission by EditorF


EditorF (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:IGNITE_INDIA_EDUCATION can someone help me in drafting this article please[reply]

Hi EditorF, please have a close look at Help:Your first article ...especially how to add sources/references to your article via the Editor. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:58, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Barpy

Can you please tell me what changes i have to make, to publish it. Barpy (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barpy Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further as it has little to no chance of being able to meet Wikipedia standards. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something(like your website). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that has articles about subjects that have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, in this case, the definition of a notable website. Not every website merits a Wikipedia article. In this case, you have offered no independent sources that have chosen on their own to write about your website in an in-depth manner(not just brief mentions, routine announcements, staff interviews, or other primary sources). Please read Your First Article for more information. If you just want to tell the world about your website, you should use social media or other alternative forum where that is permitted. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


13:21:12, 4 June 2020 review of draft by PeterEasthope


I've added three reliable links to Draft:Yamfo_College_of_Health page. Also commented in the talk page. I'm not asking for official draft review at this time. Just an advice from an experienced editor. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC) PeterEasthope (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PeterEasthope Your draft merely confirms that the college exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the college, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. The sources you have offered are just brief mentions that confirm the existence of the college. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:43:05, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Pt8340

I have used press release as references. I didn't know Wikipedia. Don't accept press release as reference. I have improve this page . please review it Pt8340 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pt8340 Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further as in the judgement of the reviewer there is little to no chance it can be sufficiently improved to meet Wikipedia standards. You are welcome to edit in other areas of the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:17:09, 4 June 2020 review of draft by Kangarolf


Hi there,

I am trying to get a new page cleared for a piece of volunteer management software that has been used a great deal in the UK to handle COVID 19 community volunteering. I copied the format for the SLACK page and included plenty of external and verifiable resources but the page got declined for being to advert like.

I'm looking for some more guidance on getting the page accepted as I think its a valid entry.

Thanks Kangarolf (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kangarolf, Couple of things.
  1. Lotta buzzwords, which is probably why it got tagged as an advert.
  2. Remember that Wikipedia writes about its subjects from a neutral, and almost...uninterested perspective. There is a lot of phrasing here that reads promotional, such as "to to identify, train and deploy volunteers to support sport and physical activity within Manchester" , which frankly should just say something like "Manchester has used TeamKinetic to support sports programs". Present the facts without presenting puffery.
  3. No external links in the body, either move them to the end in a section titled "External links", turn them into references (if relevant) or remove them.
  4. I'm not sure if this is notable. Only subjects which have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources are able to be included in Wikipedia. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CaptainEek (talk)

I've edited the post, removed all the external links and converted to refs where appropriate. I've also removed anything that cannot be externally referenced. I took out the whole features section as it was really only self referencing, though the Slack page did have this in.

Thanks for your help. I'll resubmit in a few days, if you have a chance to look again and post any comments I'd appreciate it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangarolf (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:43, 4 June 2020 review of submission by ZARAFSAEEQ


ZARAFSAEEQ (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


17:27:14, 4 June 2020 review of submission by Itsanupkumar

Hi, I have edited an article on Wikipedia. It is for someone I know and it is not an autobiography. Please help me place with this. Itsanupkumar (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please help me place this article on Wikipedia. I have made several changes to content now, and it is not an autobiography.

Itsanupkumar (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please listen to other users' concerns and stop writing about Anup Kumar. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

01:49:21, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Jamescarter19914

As we had the verified page and has been removed by google please review and update me. Jamescarter19914 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:21:18, 5 June 2020 review of submission by User:Liberma19

This article was labeled as UPE. I saw the talkpage has a disclosure already. Can this be moved out from draft to the main article already? Thank you.

07:09:01, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Shajeeralinv


Shajeeralinv (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify why this is rejected

07:14:43, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Shajeeralinv


Mr. Punnayurkulam V Bappu was a great mappila poet and he wrote mapplila songs in saskrit. He was my grand uncle and I personally seen his handwritten books with my father. Also his details are enlisted at Mahakavi Moyinkutty Vaidyar Smarakam, Kondotty. Hence I request you to publish this article. Shajeeralinv (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:06:00, 5 June 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Communication.scac


Hello,

I would like to get an explanation regarding the rejection of my submission of an article on Voilah! Festival on Wikipedia. Could you please let me know what I did wrong so to correct it?

Regards, Department for Culture, Education and Science Embassy of France in Singapore 101-103 Cluny Park Road, Singapore 259595

T +65 6880 7827 M + 65 9653 5069 sg.ambafrance.org / voilah.sg Communication.scac (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Communication.scac (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Communication.scac, well it is clearly explained in the declining message of your draft, please follow the links given within the message... - if you have any more questions you should contact the Decliner himself User:Theroadislong CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:07:15, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Feng Mantian

I don't know why my submission is declined. Could anyone help me with the adjustment? Thank you. We Love wikipedia!!!! But we are not that smart to finish this submission. Thank you for your kind help.

Feng Mantian (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Mantian You wrote a promotional page about yourself, which has now been deleted. Please review the autobiography policy as to why autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:26:35, 5 June 2020 review of submission by 92.249.179.89


92.249.179.89 (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hy,

Can you help me? I do not really know what is the problem with the article. I put all off the reference that has, but all of is Hungarian.

References do not need to be in English- and that is not the issue anyway. Please review the posts made by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:11, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Leckson58

Hi,

The page I submitted for review was declined due to notability and that it reads more like an advertisement than a wiki entry. I've edited the page and I added some few references too. Please help me review it before I resubmit it for approval.

The references I used include: Financial times, Bloomberg company profile, Health Business UK magazine, The National AE newspaper, Proactive Investors UK and Live trading news etc. All of which are not press releases and they discuss the subject in some detail and not passing mentions.


Leckson (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:33, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Theomarquezofficial


My Own Article must be accepted and Publish it

Theomarquezofficial (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theomarquezofficial You wrote a promotional page about yourself, which has now been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia only summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about (in this case) musicians that are shown to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Wikipedia has no interest in aiding your career or helping your fans. You are welcome to write about subjects other than yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


11:20:49, 5 June 2020 review of draft by GSS


I have a question regarding notability. This author has been cited by her peers in lots of scholarly articles, I think she should pass notability. These can be verified from here. Should I need to add all citations regarding her from scholar? Only availability is enough? RRRW (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RRRW You need to provide the citations, a link to a Google search is not sufficient. If you are a paid editor or otherwise represent the subject of the article, you must review WP:COI and WP:PAID before further edits. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note as per some off-wiki evidence RRRW was hired to update Institut auf dem Rosenberg and they failed to disclose. I have shared the evidence with Yunshui. GSS 💬 11:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have any coi with Eivor_Martinus. This subject has coi with user:Alamex who disclosed on their userpage. - RRRW (talk) 11:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:47, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Aflantwo

The article developed and a new source added.

Aflantwo (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:33, 5 June 2020 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:35A1:D7B2:D5E1:551C


2A01:4B00:E40D:4000:35A1:D7B2:D5E1:551C (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a re-review as the last error said it was too promotional.


13:55:45, 5 June 2020 review of draft by SChannell

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

{{Db-g7}} I was unable to upload diagrams because there is a defect with the image updload filtering that marked BPMN diagrams as unsuitable for wikipedia commons. I've published to my blog instead (https://www.cepheis.com/blog/pathwise-complexity)

SChannell (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:10, 5 June 2020 review of submission by Hasibromi

I am requesting a re-review, Because I think the page now met the notability criteria. Hasibromi (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=960898663"