Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
Talk — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Helper script		Help
desk		Backlog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

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

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


April 16[edit]

02:08:43, 16 April 2023 review of submission by SATEssayWebsiteContributer[edit]

I don't know why my page got rejected, it wasn't inappropriate or anything likewise. SATEssayWebsiteContributer (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SATEssayWebsiteContributer: it was rejected because it is completely inappropriate for a global encyclopaedia, and reads more like a script for the local-interest section of your regional TV news programme. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hate to be so blunt, SATEssayWebsiteContributer, but I see zero evidence that you are a notable person as Wikipedia defines that term. Your draft indicates that you are a twelve year old kid who has accomplished nothing other than playing amateur basketball at a very low level. I encourage you to drop this and move on. Focus on improving actual encyclopedia articles instead of trying to promote your pre-teen self. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I agree thanks for the feedback 👍 2605:B100:909:CE95:D9BB:FC63:DA02:294B (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, thanks for the feedback but I’m not talking about myself I’m taking about a friend but I still understand the point 👏🏿 2605:B100:909:CE95:D9BB:FC63:DA02:294B (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 12:19:32, 16 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Newlywo[edit]


Hello there, I do not understand why thi draft is declined... even if IMDB isnt a source, there are many others on the draft.. can someone please help? in the meantime, I will remove it and resubmit Newlywo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newlywo: the sources are insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage of him in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Also, in articles on living people, all material statements, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details such as DOB must be clearly referenced with inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently most of such information is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there, I would like to address what you wrote please, here goes;
I placed 14 References! all are reliable and independent sources, i.e
  1. 14 Kan - the biggest tv channel in Israel and also the public broadcasting channel
  2. tlvfest - Tel Aviv’s International LGBTQ Film Festival
  3. jer-cin - The Jerusalem Cinematheque was established in 1974
  4. haaretz - one of the biggest newspaper in Israel and it's daily
so, to say there isnt a significant coverage or not good sources, is simply not right.
Can you please re-review this inlight of what I wrote? because I understand it's Israeli but this person won awards and not someone who is not worthy of an article... Thank you! Newlywo (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Newlywo: it doesn't matter if there are 14 references or even 140; what matters is the quality of those references. And by 'quality', I mean whether they meet every aspect of the WP:GNG standard at once. In other words, it's not enough that one source is reliable, another is secondary, and yet another provides significant coverage – they all (the ones you wish to rely on to establish notability) must be all of those things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To elaborate further on this, of the four sources you've listed here, 2 and 3 are primary, so I'm just going to ignore those. Nos. 1 and 4 are secondary, and probably also reliable and independent, but they don't provide significant coverage of Landsman himself, and instead describe programme content he has created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Hi, thanks for the explantion, thats first. I listed just 4 but there are others as you can see. For example we have closeupinitiative, docushuk, this, I can add this and this if you think I should and I assume there are more. I didnt want to overload with sources..

With that being said, should I resubmit? Newlywo (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Newlywo: yes, I realise there are other sources also, but you brought up those four specifically to support your contention that the sourcing is adequate, and I'm using the same four to make my point that it's not. Feel free to highlight the ones that you think fully meet the GNG standard, and I'll be happy to take another look.
...or, indeed, resubmit the draft, if you're confident that it demonstrates notability, and/or you don't think you can find better sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Hi, thank you again! I under stand what you wrote and my bad for not knowing I should name all sources. I did however named a few more sources on my privious message here and would love if you can have a look. 2 of them are not listed in the draft as you can see... Newlywo (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:10:14, 16 April 2023 review of submission by 71.161.222.115[edit]


71.161.222.115 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:20:21, 16 April 2023 review of submission by 42.107.192.61



19:11:14, 16 April 2023 review of submission by 42.107.192.201[edit]


42.107.192.201 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Removed pasting of draft. Please ask a question not paste a copy of the draft here. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:32:20, 16 April 2023 review of submission by LucianMaganBall[edit]

{{Lafc|username=LucianMaganBall|ts=21:32:20, 16 April 2023|link=

}}I would like know why this Draft: Draft:Territorial.io has "unreliable refrences", im a sorta new to this whole wikipedia thing so there might be a simple reason for this

LucianMaganBall (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @LucianMaganBall many of the sources user-generated and/or do not have editorial oversight, like a newspaper does for example. Please read through the links in the decline notice. You may also find Your first article helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:46:02, 16 April 2023 review of submission by 71.161.222.115[edit]


71.161.222.115 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't ask a question but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 17[edit]

05:14:54, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Scott.d.joseph[edit]


To explain why I would like my draft to be accepted, I need to explain my ultimate goal. Fine dining is one of my passions, and I spend lots of time not just looking at restaurant guides (lists), but when I am traveling to a new location, I need to find out which are the best local guides for that reason. And so the category page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Restaurant_guides is very important to me. This page is missing some very important and popular guides in Australia and the surrounding region. Most notably, the Sydney Morning Herald's Good Food Guide is the top standard, but it's missing from that category page. When I attempted to edit that page to directly add Sydney Morning Herald's Good Food Guide, the top banner says, "To list a page in this category, do not edit this category page. ..." Hence, I made a page dedicated to that guide so that I can add the category tag at the bottom.

I originally thought about adding the category tag to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sydney_Morning_Herald, but I decided against it for the following reasons:

  1. The "Good Food Guide" is only mentioned in one bullet points, so it's not explained very well. Let's say I did create a new section within that page for the Good Food Guide and put the "Restaurant guides" category tag...
  2. The category page would now have "Sydney Morning Herald", but clicking it would just take you to the top of the "Sydney Morning Herald" wiki page. You would be confused why you're there, and wouldn't know what to even look for in that page that's related to the restaurant guides category. (Having the hyperlink jump to my new section on the Good Food Guide would solve the problem, but I don't think that feature exists?)

And so in summary, I don't think there's any way to achieve my goal unless I create a brand new page? Please let me know if alternate solutions exist. Thanks!!

Scott.d.joseph (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Scott.d.joseph. Categories are for encyclopedia articles so there is no way to include this restaurant guide in this category other than writing an encyclopedia article about it. Your current draft is exceptionally brief and includes two references. The first DMARGE source is a passing mention so is of no value in establishing notability. The second Mediaweek source is much stronger since it devotes significant coverage to the guide. So, find several more sources like the second one, and do not include references to sources like your first one. Also, if this restaurant guide is so significant, can't you write more than two brief sentences about it? After all, you just wrote 14 sentences arguing in favor of this draft. Cullen328 (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Scott.d.joseph: that's correct; categories list and organise Wikipedia articles on given topics, therefore the only way to have something included in a category is to create an article on it. (That's a somewhat back-to-front way of putting it, but that's what it comes down to.)
And I agree, you shouldn't put the SMH main title into that category, as it will indeed be confusing.
As for whether the guide should have its own article or be incorporated in the existing SMH one, I can't really comment on as I'm not familiar enough with the publication(s) in question. To some extent this would depend on how much the guide is an independent stand-alone title, vs. an integral part of the main publication. In Wikipedia policy terms it also depends on whether sufficient sources can be found that cover the guide on its own for it to be notable; the two sources your draft currently cites wouldn't be enough to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Scott.d.joseph An article, or category, or anything else that lists food guides will be kept up to date... how? For things like this, it seems that once the first editor stops editing, others are not always so keen to keep these kinds of things up to date. But, good luck... David10244 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

05:28:29, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Lets xplore[edit]


I like to know why my content is rejected. He is a local well known person & provide so much services.


Lets xplore (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lets xplore: it was rejected because there is no evidence this person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lets xplore, Your first sentence is Manoj T, an Inspiring and enthusiastic personality who uses positive attitude and tireless energy both professional and personally. That is overtly promotional and violates the Neutral point of view, which a core content policy. It also tells us nothing of substance about this person. What does he do for a living? What city and country does he live in? How old is he? Where was he educated? And so on. Much deeper in your draft we can learn some of this, but the reader never learns why this person is notable, as opposed to billions of other hard working, good people. Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising, promotion, marketing or public relations of any kind. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328, aren't you also an inspiring and enthusiastic personality who uses positive attitude and tireless energy both professional and personally? I know that I am. David10244 (talk) 05:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
David10244, well, I do get tired at bed time each day. Cullen328 (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like "tired energy". David10244 (talk) 08:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:26:19, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Onnyyonn[edit]

The submission was declined twice for the subject not being notable enough. However, Multiple sources are cited in the draft that fulfills the criteria of the subject being covered in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. She has been covered in plenty of books, published in late 19th century to early 20th century, as well as numerous modern day newspaper / magazine articles. Moreover, she is notable to the local population, and her story still gets mentioned in the modern day literature. I would like to understand what objective criteria does the subject doesn't fulfill (it is not clear to me from the reviewers' comments)? Onnyyonn (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Onnyyonn: I agree that some of the sources cited meet the criteria you've described (while others probably don't); however, you've left out one criterion, namely significant coverage. Which of the sources would you say provide that? On a quick glance, many of them seem to offer only passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here are some examples of significant coverage of her:
- Chapter XI of Echoes from Old Calcutta (Citation 4 in the draft)
- Chapter VIII of Calcutta, Past and Present (Citation 3 in the draft)
- Chapter III of Letters and other unpublished writings of Walter Savage Landor (Citation 10 in the draft) Onnyyonn (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onnyyonn: alright, highlight those (as being the strongest sources in your opinion) in the draft before resubmitting, so that the next reviewer can make sure to look into them in more detail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Onnyyonn: One thing you could do that would be helpful for the reviewer (and, even more importantly, helpful for the encyclopedia's readers once the article is published) is to provide page numbers for the book citations. That is, add a page= parameter in the citation, with the page(s) where the specific information is located.
If you use information located on different pages in the same source (which I see that you have done a few times), you can instead place the template {{rp|PAGE}} after the closing </ref> or the <ref name="NAME" /> tag. For the first instance of (the current) citation 2 in the draft, it would look like this in the wiki code:<ref name=":4">{{Cite book [...]}}</ref>{{rp|60}}. Hope this makes sense! You'll find the documentation for the "rp" template here. Another thing: ancestry.com is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia, so you may as well remove it before submitting again. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:07:05, 17 April 2023 review of draft by Hawkearp8[edit]


Would like to know what is unacceptable please-also can I edit the title? Hawkearp8 (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hawkearp8: did you read the decline reasons (the grey boxes inside the large pink box)? They give the reasons why this was declined.
You may wish to look at WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice on article creation and referencing, respectively.
And yes, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be published at a title which conforms to Wikipedia naming policies. For now we can just leave it where it is. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Javad Nazari[edit]

Greetings and Regards I wanted to suggest creating an article for the actor and composer Javad Nazari. Before this article was created in the [www.de.everybodywiki.com/Javad_Nazari German Wikipedia], But unfortunately, after a long time has passed since the creation of the article, one of the admins mistakenly thinks that Javad Nazari is another person named Javad Ramezani, who tried to forge, and for this reason, he mistakenly deletes Javad Nazari, if these two names Only their minors were the same, and their surnames, date of birth, and place of birth were different. In any case, search Javad Nazari's name on Google, and you will find out that he deserves to have a page on Wikipedia. Thank you. 5.74.171.102 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the right place to request new articles. By which I mean, even without the history of socking and spamming associated with the subject of Javad Nazari, this wouldn't be the right place to request new articles. Shall we just leave it at that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:19:03, 17 April 2023 review of submission by FjsLr[edit]

Hi, I created this draft a few months ago by essentially translating its original (Hungarian) page. I used the same sources that that page uses and added some more as I expanded on the article significantly. I do cite two Wiki articles as sources from the Hungarian site, if that is a problem I can remove them. Otherwise please let me know why the sources I used were not appropriate. Thanks! FjsLr (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FjsLr: events may have overtaken us, as I can see that this draft was reviewed yesterday (twice, in fact), but just as a general comment, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project with their own policies and guidelines, including for notability; just because a subject has been deemed notable enough for inclusion in one language version, doesn't mean it will be automatically accepted into another. Therefore, before starting to translate, it is a good idea to check that the sources cited in the original are enough to meet the target language version's requirements, or if not, that new sources can be found which do. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FjsLr: on the face of it, it seems likely that this would be a notable institution, but I see the reviewers' point. The current sources are mainly focused on notable people associated with the academy, not on the academy itself. Organisations, including schools and universities, have fairly strict criteria for showing notability: here are the relevant notability guidelines. Sources can be in Hungarian, but please help the reviewers by providing as much information as you can about them, and in those cases where there are English-language versions of the sources, those are preferable (e.g. this, which has an English version here). --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FjsLr Yes, neither of us declined the article for lack of notability. It seems very likely to me that this is a notable subject, but where is the coverage in reliable, secondary sources? -- asilvering (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:46:06, 17 April 2023 review of draft by SLCCultural[edit]


There currently is no reference literature for the historic Brighton Drain (archaeological site #42SL266). Uploading this information to Wikipedia is a means to disseminate information to the publice as part of mitigation efforts required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. Official documentation and reporting for this resource were completed as part of compliance measures with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

SLCCultural (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @SLCCultural: judging by your comments, it seems you may have misunderstood the basic premise of Wikipedia. We are never the first platform to "disseminate information" that hasn't been published elsewhere; instead, we summarise what other (reliable and independent) sources have previously published about a subject. Furthermore, reliable published sources are required to verify any information included in a Wikipedia article. From this is follows that if no such sources can be found, then it isn't possible to have an article on the subject included in Wikipedia. (You may wish to see verifiability and notability for more information on these two core concepts.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SLCCultural Wikipedia is not for merely disseminating information; Wikipedia articles primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. As noted by the reviewer, this topic may very well be notable, but it presently does not have the sources to support it. If it does not have the sources to support it, it cannot be on Wikipedia as an article until it does.
It sounds like this documentation is more suitable for a local newspaper, social media, or website for this flood control measure or the organization operating it- not Wikipedia. If a law requires Wikipedia to display such compliance measures(I doubt it, but I'm not certain) you will need to communicate that to the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers(see this link, and scroll to "Other legal questions or requests").
If you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers or some other agency/organization charged with "official documentation and reporting" related to this topic, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure; you should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@331dot, do you think that's a "role" username? David10244 (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought it might have been the name of an organization, but I could not find one with such a name(though some are close). As long as the user is not sharing their account I think it may be okay based on what I know now. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. David10244 (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:51:27, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Raylaur15[edit]

Dear Wiki Editor: I submitted a draft article, Los Pleneors de la 21, three months ago, on January 14, 2023. I have added four appropriate Wikiproject Tags for the article: Caribbean, Puerto Rico, Music, And New York City. I also highlighted the four best sources that meet the notability criteria for musicians Los Pleneros de la 21 On March 18 as suggested.

Is there any way I can get some movement on the evaluation process? ITs been three months!

I am very willing to make changes if someone would please tell me what additional work/information needs to be done/included. Please let me know and thanks! Raylaur15

Raylaur15 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Los Pleneros de la 21
@Raylaur15: unfortunately there is no way of expediting review; we have nearly 4,000 pending drafts waiting to be reviewed, and reviews are not done in any particular order. Please be patient, rest assured your draft will be reviewed eventually. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:12:50, 17 April 2023 review of submission by Wyatt07yeahnoyeah[edit]


Wyatt07yeahnoyeah (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wyatt07yeahnoyeah: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 18[edit]

13:56:45, 18 April 2023 review of submission by Golden Elegance Agency[edit]


Golden Elegance Agency (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User blocked and draft deleted due to WP:NOTPROMO. S0091 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

14:30:17, 18 April 2023 review of draft by Veramerks[edit]


Hi there,

I am requesting help because I want to write an article on The One Minutes, a foundation for video art. I submitted a draft but it was denied because there is a similar page called Oneminutes. The One Minutes as a foundation distributes one-minute videos, which are called Oneminutes. The article Oneminutes is quite old and is about the videos used; not about the foundation itself. How can I make sure I can post a new page about the foundation, without it getting denied because it;s similar to the Oneminutes page?

Veramerks (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Veramerks: I haven't looked into this in enough depth to be able to comment on whether 'The One Minutes' and the 'Oneminutes' (or 'One Minutes', as it seems to be alternatively rendered) are conceptually distinct enough to warrant or even require separate articles, or similar and related enough to be covered together in one; an argument could probably be made either way. But I will say this: both the existing Oneminutes article and this new draft need to do a better job in making it clear to the reader what the taxonomy of all these oneminutes is, because from the little I've looked into these I'm none the wiser.
Also probably worth saying that the Oneminutes article is unreferenced (how it has survived for 16+ years, I've no idea!) and generally a bit of a mess and in need of updating and improving. If you're volunteering to do all that, then have at it! (Just one thing: do you have some sort of external relationship with any of this? If so, I'll post a message on your talk page with instructions on how to manage that.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:15:55, 18 April 2023 review of draft by TitanicSankUnderWater[edit]

Hello, i am wondering how i can make my Wikipedia article more information. Thanks TitanicSankUnderWater (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TitanicSankUnderWater: Hello Titanic! You can find more sources for your article by using your regular search engine, or using the custom search engine specifically for locating reliable sources located at WP:RSSE. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:03:03, 18 April 2023 review of submission by MelanieHinkle[edit]


I have received notice that This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I used the Wikipedia Help Live Chat to get feedback on my article, and tips for citations and sources. With that guidance, I have re-edited and simplified the language, and updated all sources. I took out a lot of unusable sources and would appreciate the opportunity to have this up for reconsideration. Thank you for your time!

MelanieHinkle (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MelanieHinkle: this draft has been rejected (after no fewer than nine earlier declines, I might add) and won't therefore be considered further. In any case, I've had a quick look at the sources, and they still don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

18:55:40, 18 April 2023 review of draft by Lisapaulinet[edit]


I don't know how to fix it from redirecting to the Marablehead, Massahusetts page. It said Warning make sure this is not a copy of the Marblehead, Massachusetts page.

Also, I am unsure of how to fix my references. I took out any reference to the Abbot Public Library's website because my article was declined because the references were not independant of the subject. I hope these references are better. Thanks. Lisapaulinet (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lisapaulinet: don't worry about the redirect, that will be deleted if/when your draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks Lisapaulinet (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

19:06:33, 18 April 2023 review of submission by Xlea Nollmav[edit]

I have been working on getting this page approved and having a lot of trouble. The last editor to decline the draft said it may not even be worthy of a Wikipedia page. I have included many secondary, independent, reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.) and have seen other existing pages that have far less than that (one, White's Boots, that even links to the company's own website). I assume that because I disclosed that this is a COI, the page is being placed under more scrutiny. I understand the need for such scrutiny; however, I have to say, the backend of Wikipedia is not easy to navigate/understand, and I am truly trying my best to create an encyclopedic, informative article that abides by all of Wikipedia's rules. I am totally happy to have another Wikipedia editor edit the article and resubmit it for me; however, I am having trouble understanding how to go about requesting that. Any help/direction would be greatly appreciated! Xlea Nollmav (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Xlea Nollmav as for other articles see WP:OSE. Wikipedia's guidelines have changed overtime, generally becoming more strict, so an article acceptable years ago may not be acceptable today. I have started a discussion on the draft's talk page about notability and pinged you there. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your note — and help! Xlea Nollmav (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

21:39:54, 18 April 2023 review of submission by Stickyorangecookie11[edit]

I found a source on the site Newspapers.com and an article from the Star Phoenix in Saskatoon Saskatchewan as a reference. Stickyorangecookie11 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Stickyorangecookie11 that's a good start but how do the sources meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC? Try also Google Books. Once you have three sources with in-depth coverage about them, add those (see this guide) and expand the draft based what those sources have written then you can come back here and ask to resubmit the draft for another review. S0091 (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 19[edit]

02:59:01, 19 April 2023 review of draft by User192828[edit]


i need help with citing sources for my draft page of an unencoded letter that looks like a cyrillic letter ge with the addition of a hook [ ◌̡  ]. i can't even find a source. can someone please help?

User192828 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) User192828 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User192828: where did you get the information that is currently in the draft? Cite that source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

07:47:53, 19 April 2023 review of submission by Alexandrsashin[edit]


I had a note after review

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Can somebody help me? Why is the reference not reliable?

Alexandrsashin (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It probably is reliable but that is all you have, and we require more, at least three usually which cover the topic in-depth with significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I try to add more references. Alexandrsashin (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:23:00, 19 April 2023 review of draft by Mwenye mudzi ndimi[edit]


how should i do refferencing so that my draft can be accepted and published

Mwenye mudzi ndimi (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mwenye mudzi ndimi: you need to clearly cite reliable sources (see WP:REFB) to support the draft contents, and those sources must establish that the subject is notable per WP:GNG; your draft currently does neither. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:37:55, 19 April 2023 review of draft by 31.125.3.131[edit]


can I add something to the drwft title please? [to differentiate from others with exactly same name]. also- how do I upload pictures please.

31.125.3.131 (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry about the title, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be moved to its correct title (probably Mike McNeill (guitarist) as that is the least amount of disambiguation necessary).
As for uploading images, see WP:FUW. Please ensure you comply with copyright rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much more importantly, your draft has zero independent, reliable zero sources, and that is what we base articles on. The subject would need to pass the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 20[edit]

05:30:57, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Caerdyddcymru[edit]


I had written a contribution on this Welsh writer, who has had international success and whose most recent work Lost Boys and Fairies (for BBC) is currently filming in Cardiff and has had widespread media attention. I have extensively sourced the article, however the rejection states not of significant coverage or lack of references, neither of which is accurate. Look forward to hearing more on why this article was rejected.

Caerdyddcymru (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Caerdyddcymru: okay, calm down, nothing has been rejected, only declined. Rejection means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can, you just first need to address the reasons why the draft was declined. No need to go straight for the biggest gun in the arsenal, arbitration hearing (which this wouldn't be eligible for anyway).
Per WP:GNG, we need to see multiple sources, each of which simultaneously meets all the following criteria: they are secondary published sources which are fully independent of the subject, reliable (meaning, a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking) and provide significant coverage of the subject. Primary sources such as the Curtis Brown website don't count. Interviews don't count. Sources covering related subjects, such as James's works, don't count. Works authored by the subject don't count. IMDb is not considered reliable, as it is user-generated. Against all that, which of the 42 (!) references would you say best meets this GNG standard? Please highlight the strongest three to five. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I truly appreciate your guidance on this matter and is much clearer that what's on the wikipedia help pages. :-)
In terms of body of work (i.e. the subject matter's theatrical and tv programmes), how are these sourced if you can't use primary sources? i.e. for the 3-5 sources, would links to the actual work (i.e. for radio programmes a link to the broadcaster where you can listen to the piece mentioned). For awards, would the URL for the actual award received be sufficient (i.e. LA Drama Critics Award website)?
Very much look forward to hearing back from you. With best wishes. Caerdyddcymru (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Caerdyddcymru: you can use primary sources to verify facts (well, some types of primary sources, and some types of facts – see the next paragraph), but you cannot use them to establish notability, which is the reason why this draft was declined.
To give a concrete example, if a company states on their website that their HQ is located in Toronto and their CEO is Cindy Lee, we can pretty much take those at face value. (But we wouldn't necessarily believe it if they tweeted it, say.) If they state that they have built a perpetual motion machine, we would clearly need independent sources to corroborate that. And no matter what they say on their website (or elsewhere), this won't contribute in the slightest to their notability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for explain that, and I totally understand why the draft was declined. Caerdyddcymru (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request on 10:04:01, 20 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Cadencerock[edit]


The article was not accepted to publish and recommended for deletion, all the facts and figure given in the text are true and the content of the article is also organisational input, thus assistance was felt to figure out the reason of rejection of the article again and again and simultaneously learn how to publish the same article as it is one of the important missions undertaken by Indian Navy


Cadencerock (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cadencerock: it was declined and deleted as a copyright violation (for the second time). Please review our policy on copyright violations before editing further. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12:56:51, 20 April 2023 review of draft by MariaRocha16[edit]

My article got declined and I need help citing my sources so they are deemed reliable.

MariaRocha16 (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @MariaRocha16: see WP:REFB for advice on referencing, WP:RS and WP:GNG on what constitutes good sources, and WP:BLP on how articles on living people need to be referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:07:23, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Kolhapurisaaj[edit]

Hey can Please tell me the cause of deletion. Kolhapurisaaj (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

op blocked lettherebedarklight晚安 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:09:55, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Ashe7896[edit]

why was my article declined

Ashe7896 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ashe7896: please read the comments left by the reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

17:54:07, 20 April 2023 review of submission by 104.251.77.50[edit]

I just think it deserves a page man 104.251.77.50 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no such thing as "deserves a page". If a subject has been covered in appropriate published sources enough to make it notable, an article on it can be included in Wikipedia; otherwise not. Desert doesn't come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

20:54:35, 20 April 2023 review of draft by Johnmrri[edit]


I'm editing the draft of Tom Wilson Weinberg and want to link to several other Wikipedia pages. Two of the links are ambiguous so if you were searching Wikipedia, it would ask you which one you wanted. But I'm not sure how to differentiate them in the editing code. Right now, for example, there is a link to "Giovanni's Room", the novel by James Baldwin. But it is supposed to be a link to the LGBTQ bookstore by that name.

Johnmrri (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Johnmrri: this is more of a general editing question than anything to do with the AfC process, but... it sounds like you're asking about piping links (see WP:PIPE), which is a way of making a wikilink point to a different target than what is displayed to the reader; this is useful eg. when you want to use a simple display word for the link, but need to use a more complicated link word because of disambiguation needed. So for example, you might have [[Snowy (character)|Snowy]] if you wanted a link displaying the name 'Snowy' and pointing specifically to the article on Tintin's dog. If you simply make a link to Snowy, that would point to the disambiguation page, which wouldn't be helpful to the reader. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

23:05:37, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Wequant[edit]


Wequant (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I'm writing Wikipedia About GMT Token but is was declined, i can't understand reason Wequant (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:GMT Token
@Wequant: did you read the decline notice? It gives the reasons. The main one being, your draft doesn't cite a single source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wequant, your draft fails the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Their Any Way To Improve My Draft[edit]

I just recent got a alerts from my draft saying that my draft references does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article and the reception section is extremely lacking. i normally seen this draft as perfect and nothing to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatwonTSG2 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 21[edit]

09:10:35, 21 April 2023 review of submission by FT kev[edit]

I have been declined so much that I can't send anymore. It's about a Youtuber, and I need resources but no one really talks about him so I am trying the best that I can to get this posted.

FT kev (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FT kev: if "no one really talks about him", then by definition he isn't notable in Wikipedia terms, and it therefore isn't possible to have an article on him. Hence, why this has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But if you check his stats and channel, it clearly shows that he is notable. FT kev (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FT kev: please review notability; it says nothing about "stats and channel". This is the end of the road for that draft, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FT kev, just to add onto what DoubleGrazing has explained, I'll remind you that views, likes, and subscribers do not translate to real world notability per se. My favorite example is Sssniperwolf, who has no article despite 35.5 million subscribers (111th all-time) and nearly 23 billion total views. This page helps to explain what it takes for a YouTuber to be considered notable. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FT kev A YouTuber might be popular but not notable. David10244 (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

13:35:02, 21 April 2023 review of draft by User192828[edit]


ok so i need help with finding sources to cite on my draft. does anyone know what alphabet could the cyrillic ge with hook be used on? is there the help of someone who could probably have... very good knowledge?

User192828 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User192828: as I said in response to your previous similar query, cite the source(s) where you got the information that is currently in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

15:28:49, 21 April 2023 review of draft by 2601:2C4:4380:9DD0:E905:6160:E0F0:A994[edit]


Looking for some additional guidance for the re-written submission. It is a direct copy of content that appears on our Wikitia page, so I'm not sure what else needs to be changes as far as the language reading like an advertisement. Any additional feedback is much appreciated! draft:Lancium

2601:2C4:4380:9DD0:E905:6160:E0F0:A994 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The draft gives no obvious reason why this company should be included in a global encyclopaedia, it just describes a ROTM business that exists and does some stuff. Yet at the same time the tone and content are promotional throughout, especially the 'Solutions' (!) section is pure ADMASQ.
The sources, with the possible exception of the HPC Wire, are just routine business reporting and churnalism, none of which helps to make the company notable in Wikipedia terms, per WP:ORGCRIT.
And needless to say, whether or not an article on this subject has been accepted into some other publication out there is neither here nor there, as they have their policies and requirements, and we have ours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

22:13:41, 21 April 2023 review of submission by Readerx nk[edit]

I am requesting this re-review cause all wikipedia guide lines have been followed, and a well descriptive article regarding the musician/songwriter deraa created.

Readerx nk (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Readerx nk: this draft has been rejected and will not be reviewed again; self-evidently not all guidelines had been followed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 22[edit]

07:16:24, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Blinkmass[edit]


Please Accept My Wikipedia Draft Article

Blinkmass (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Blinkmass: I have rejected this draft, and requested that it be speedily deleted; so no, I will not accept it. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your church, or your religious leaders, or any other topic for that matter. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sir I Am Not Promoting Church Sir This Is The Biggest Congregation Church In Pune Please Accept It Sir @DoubleGrazing Blinkmass (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FTR: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashishrawde16k --bonadea contributions talk 07:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:14:41, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Abm1994[edit]

Prashna is one of the Important Marathi films and it on 17 Awards and selection in 37 Film festivals all over the world . Abm1994 (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abm1994: the evidence doesn't seem to bear that out; in any case, here at Wikipedia we are concerned with notability, not 'importance'. Besides, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

09:55:44, 22 April 2023 review of draft by 林儀承[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editor,

I am writing to appeal the rejection of my recent submission to Wikipedia. My article was about the engineering college at our university. We believe that this article is very important because our engineering college has many international students, and when they want to learn about our college, searching on Wikipedia is the fastest and most convenient way. However, currently, our engineering college only has a page in Chinese, which is obviously incorrect. Although the engineering college at Donghua University belongs to Donghua University, Donghua University has many colleges, and our campus is also very large. Simply introducing the history, buildings, environment, ecology, etc. of the campus is already a huge amount of content, and each college contains multiple departments. Our engineering college covers 8 departments, and each department is very independent in terms of profession. The channels for further study and the activities of each department are also very different over the years. If all the information about Donghua University's campus and the various colleges is placed on the same page, I think it would be very cluttered and difficult to read.

Therefore, I would like to request the establishment of an English version of the Wikipedia page to introduce our engineering college and to continue updating the latest information, so that international students from different countries can have a convenient way to understand our college, including its history and various activities. This is very important to me, and I sincerely hope that you can reconsider my submission.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request.


林儀承 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @林儀承: we accept articles on most topics where the subject can be shown to be notable, usually by reference to the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you can find and cite such sources, you may have an article accepted; otherwise not. This is not an arbitrary decision on our part, as in whether or not we eg. 'like the topic'. It also has nothing to do with your needs to market your institution to overseas students; for that, you need to find other promotional channels.
Note also that while most universities can be shown to be notable, very often individual departments, faculties, colleges and other such component parts are not. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

10:11:57, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Jamesinhere[edit]


Seems the reviewer was unable to distinguish between a company (a portion of business sold to another company) and rebranding in a region under new ownership.

The reviewers keep referring to an already article written about the company where the company sold a portion of the business to another company for some regions and the new owner doing the rebranding activity.

Also, there is mention of promotional language but what exactly to be updated is missing. Jamesinhere (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jamesinhere: please don't make assumptions about a reviewer's ability, just because you don't like the review outcome. (In any case, the reviewer in question is highly experienced and skilled at Wikipedia reviewing and editing, with 1,000+ AfC edits under their belt.)
It isn't entirely clear what, if anything, you're asking, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not considered further. If you wish to challenge that, you must make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, will directly take this up with reviewer. Jamesinhere (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11:44:55, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Boaz.levin[edit]


Hello, I would like to request a re-review. As a long-time member of the wiki community, and a writer and art and film curator, I can say that he is without a doubt that Kevin B. Lee is important and well-established critic and filmmaker (as his position as the Locarno Film Festival Professor for the Future of Cinema and the Audiovisual Arts clearly shows). While I can see why previous versions were rejected (with too many unsubstantiated phrases that read like a resume), the tone of the article and its sources have greatly improved.

And some of the criticism mounted against his previous edits was unwarranted: failing the verification of what was previously the first citation (now the third), an academic peer-reviewed article in an international and open-access journal, seems spiteful at best, and really makes very little sense. If that's not a good source, I really don't know what a good source would be.

The article has been described as reading more like an advertisement: but this is a biographical description filled with citations from notable sources, from the NY Times, academic journals, and leading academic institutions, many of which describe the subject of the article using the same terms (i.e "pioneer of desktop documentary" in Yale News, or in a New York Times article describing his practice as a documentarists "transforming phone videos into publicity and a film"). If he's described as a "pioneering filmmaker" by multiple notable sources, it's fair to say he should be described as one here too, with those sources cited.


Honestly, reading the of harsh rejections of his article is quite disappointing as a longtime wiki fan. Rather than encouraging a newcomer to the platform, these comments are spiteful, lack any sense of proportion, and even lazy. If the editors would have bothered to go through his sources they would have found the potential for a robust and well-merited entry. Instead of rejecting it on the spot, all they had to do was google around to find half a dozen additional reliable sources. Some things could be recast into a more objective tone, yes, but four consecutive rejections with little advice or guidance for what is essentially a helpful entry for people in the field (film scholars, curators, filmmakers), don't make much sense to me.

Please reconsider, and use constructive criticism rather than simply rejecting it on the spot. Boaz.levin (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Boaz.levin: there is nothing "rejecting on the spot" about this; as you probably know, this isn't the first time this draft has been created. And this version was declined repeatedly before being rejected.
Whether the subject is "important and well-established" isn't what concerns us; we need to see that they are notable, as defined in the Wikipedia context, and despite several opportunities this hasn't been demonstrated.
As the draft has now been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, your remaining option is to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1151181149"