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 Mathuvw (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 31 May 2021 (→14:42:34, 31 May 2021 review of draft by 217.149.171.75). 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 25

03:39:51, 25 May 2021 review of draft by 1.39.250.68


1.39.250.68 (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 01:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:12:25, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Sneha-SIPL


Need suggestion to improve or submit draft for Dr. Shivani Khetan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shivani_Khetan as the article is having significant coverage, sources and also reliable.

Sneha-SIPL (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to the non-English sources, every single English source cited is unacceptable - you have interviews, online storefronts, and passing mentions. No third-party in-depth coverage of her. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:04:10, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Infantry28


Infantry28 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar pages on Wikipedia. Why it has been rejected when it also followed the prescribed format? What advise can you give to have this page published? Thank you

The draft has no content and no references. If this is an attempt at a biography of a living person, follow guidelines at WP:BLP David notMD (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:42, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Mridula Mukhia


Mridula Mukhia (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC) I am trying to make a wiki page for Siliguri Times which is a news web portal, but unfortunately, I'm not being able to. Every time I upload my composition, it says that it's more like an advertisement. When I remove all the links and just write the basic information, the response says that the info is not enough to make the page. I don't know what am I doing wrong. Could you kindly help?[reply]

Mridula Mukhia Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have not offered any such sources and it seems unlikely that they would exist for such a new organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this outlet, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:30:16, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Nintednic13


Hi I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with the article 'Rahul Suntah' as I made sure there is information from as much reliable sources as possible. Also could I know what exactly is wrong with the way the article was written?

Nintednic13 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nintednic13 The sources offered seem to be interviews with him or merely cite the existence of his music. A Wikipedia article about a musician must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Interviews are a primary source and do not establish notability. Having a lot of YouTube views is not part of the notability criteria(mostly because that is easily gamed and/or means little). Merely releasing an album also does not establish notability; please review the notability criteria to see if this musician meets at least one aspect of it. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:30:33, 25 May 2021 review of submission by 83.218.248.79


Dear editors, please re-reviev the page. We are deleted all un allowed data and correct the structure. 83.218.248.79 (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? If you are E.tsymbalenko, please log in. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of Draft:Terra0

Draft:Terra0

I recently wrote my first Wikipedia article. It was rejected due to insufficient, reliable sources. I have understood the criticism and corrected the errors to the best of my knowledge, but I lack insight into whether there are other points of criticism, which is why I would be happy about precise assistance (if needed)! In general, do I just resubmit rejected items after the issues have been resolved or is it recommended to discuss them in Talk pages first? Thanks! PLTPRX (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:34:49, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Hockey4lyfe


Hockey4lyfe (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey4lyfe You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:45, 25 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bela Adu


Hi, I have put a lot of effort into creating the wikipedia page for the Romanian musician, Zoli Toth. I have provided a wealth of references from newspapers and magazines that are in no way related to the subject of this article. It is my impression that the reviewer limited his evaluation to the references that are in English. Google translate works very well from Romanian into English, so it should be no problem to provide a fair review. Thank you very much for your help! Bela Adu (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Bela Adu Bela Adu (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bela Adu You have a lot of sources- in a funny way, that's actually problematic refbombing. Wikipedia prefers a smaller number of sources with more significant coverage; if you need a lot of sources each with a little piece of information, that shows the person does not get significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person or a notable musician. Many of your sources seem to be citing the existence of the person's music or the individual pieces of recognition they got. Please see Your First Article. I might suggest focusing a draft on the top three most significant sources about this person, summarizing what they say about him. Sources that just tell what he has done or show where his music can be found or are a routine announcement do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:48, 25 May 2021 review of submission by Josie.mcjoserson


Hello,

I submitted an article draft for the Virtana company. I received a notification that my submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Please help me understand why this is the case. I referred to the Dynatrace Wikipedia page (it is company that is similar to Virtana) and used similar reference publications (except for press releases).

While a few of the historical references in my submission might be brief (after all they are just setting the context for how the subject got to the present), most references discuss the subject or its products/services in detail.

I limited my references to secondary sources consisting of business or industry publications. Also, I did not reference the subject’s web site or its own publications, press releases, etc.

  • I have 26 third-party references from business and technology related publications’ articles related to Virtana and/or its products.
    • 14 references are from within the past 3 years (2018 - present)
    • 12 references are after the company renamed itself to Virtana
    • 14 references are from when the company was named Virtual Instruments
  • Business publications
    • Silicon Valley Business Journal
    • CIO Review
    • ExecutiveBiz
  • Industry/Trade publications or Analyst reports
    • SearchStorage
    • CRN (Computer Reseller News)
    • Network World
    • Network Computing
    • InfoStor
    • The Register
    • eWeek
    • ComputerWeekly
    • Data Center Dynamics
    • ZDnet
    • siliconANGLE
    • Intellyx
    • Bloor Research
    • SNMP Center
    • IT Pro
    • Myce
    • The Silicon Review

I would like to modify my submission as necessary to make it compliant with Wikipedia’s requirements. To that end, would you please help by answering the following?

Q: Which of these publications/references are not considered reliable?

Q: Are there areas of information that are missing? I included the company name, what it does, its CEO, history, partnerships, and industry recognition. Would including a description of its current products be helpful?

Thank you very much!

Josie.mcjoserson (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josie.mcjoserson I am wondering if you have a connection to this company. If so, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures.
Regarding your inquiry, it's not usually a good idea to use other articles as a guide for yours. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate. Please read other stuff exists. We try to address such articles, but we can only address what we know about; it is possible to get inappropriate content by us.
You may not be using press releases, but most of your sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, this does not establish notability. A Wikipedia article about a company should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Significant coverage goes beyone merely telling what the company does, and gives in depth analysis and comments. Please see Your First Article. (your draft is linked to in this posting, it does not need to be reproduced here) 331dot (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:28:13, 25 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ResourceMaverick


Trying to get a page set up for author Marin Katusa, I am not good with computers and the to the bibliography, any help would be appreciated

ResourceMaverick (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ResourceMaverick Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". You have written what this person has done- Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Sources that just tell what the person has done and interviews with him do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. If you work for or represent him, please review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:01:06, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Telenovelafan215


The article was declined because: it does not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I have added 21 references for the series from different sources. On my talk page I was told that because the subject is an upcoming TV series. Future TV series are seldom notable, and this is no exception. It is premiering in 47 days (July 11, 2021). I would really like to get the article approved but I don't know what else to do to improve it. I was also accused of being paid for my edits because I want the article to be approved. I have created many articles for TV shows when they were still upcoming series and had not premiered yet and not once were they rejected. This is the first time I have had this problem where an article for an upcoming television series was moved to a draft space.

Telenovelafan215 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Telenovelafan215: GermanKity moved the article to draft on 24 May. WP:DRAFTIFY says "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." You expanded the page and moved it back to article space, plainly an objection. GermanyKity moved the page to draft a second time on 25 May, an abuse of draftification. The correct course of action if they still felt the topic was not notable would have been to take it to AfD. Draftifying a page multiple times is disruptive and a violation of policy. You would be within your rights to pursue the matter at a drama board, but I hope this can be resolved this without that.
GermanKity also added {{Undisclosed paid}} to the draft without explanation, and posted {{uw-paid1}} at User talk:Telenovelafan215#May 2021. Telenovelafan215 replied there, "I have never received compensation for my edits here on Wikipedia". It's fine to use these templates when one has a strong suspicion, but once the question has been answered, one is expected to assume good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. No evidence of conflict of interest, let alone undisclosed paid editing, has been presented, so I have removed the template from the draft. If anyone has evidence, report the matter at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Afc reviewer Robert McClenon declined to move the draft to article space on the grounds of notability, noting that "The subject is an upcoming TV series. Future TV series are seldom notable, and this is no exception." Guideline WP:NTV says, "[A] television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network". So once the series airs on Las Estrellas it likely will be notable. The guideline goes on to spell out situations in which shows are not eligible before airing (none of which apply here). We can infer that there are also cases in which shows are notable before they air.
The cited coverage is almost entirely based on announcements by the network/producers (i.e. press releases), social media posts by the producers/actors (the modern-day version of press releases), and an interview with the lead actor. None of these are independent sources, regardless of where they're published. The best bets for demonstrating notability are (1) the brief analysis on Infobae regarding how the comedy will have to change from the 1980s and 1990s, because the gynocologist's harrassment of women will no longer be funny,[1] and (2) the analysis on El Sol de Mexico, but that's only about 100 words.[2]
Wikipedia is supposed to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of them. If you're comfortable that the draft does so, comfortable enough that you're willing to risk AfD, then move it to article space again. Plenty of other upcoming series have never been challenged, such as The Big Leap, La Brea (TV series), CSI: Vegas, and Ordinary Joe. If you aren't sure, then wait until after it airs. Once people have seen it, more is likely to be written about it in independent, reliable, secondary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Worldbruce, for your assessment of the situation, with which I agree, but I will add a few comments. It appears that this was a case of two overly enthusiastic editors both trying to do the right thing. Reviewers should be held to a higher standard than article authors, and User:GermanKity made mistakes. The more common mistake, which is a mistake, was double draftification. The more serious mistake was use of the Paid Editing tag on an editor whose history is that of an enthusiastic editor, not of a paid editor. I agree with the first draftification. My own opinion is that if the article had been nominated for deletion after the second move to article space, it would have been deleted. So I suggest that User:Telenovelafan215 wait until the middle of July, and add Reception information, and either resubmit the draft, or move the draft to article space. I have reminded User:GermanKity that an article should not be moved to draft space twice, but can be nominated for deletion the second time. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:32, 25 May 2021 review of draft by Russlowe


Hi! I submitted this for re-review a while ago and I can’t figure out why it’s taking so long… I really need to get it published. Thanks for your help. Russlowe (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the message displayed whenever anyone asks a question here, "If you are waiting for a reviewer to review your draft, please be patient, as drafts are reviewed in no specific order. The reviewing process currently has a 5+ months backlog, with 4,966 pending submissions waiting for review. Please do not ask for a reviewer to tell you the status of your draft or to review it faster." Your draft has been pending for less than two months, which really isn't all that bad. We're all volunteers here, and someone will get to your draft eventually. Thanks for understanding! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

00:29:05, 26 May 2021 review of draft by RaileyHearts


RaileyHearts (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:25:13, 26 May 2021 review of submission by 95.70.176.125


95.70.176.125 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of your sources are worthless, with five of them being the same copypasta'd press release, with the remainder being interviews or incredibly short articles that are no use for notability in any circumstance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:41:40, 26 May 2021 review of submission by InaJac


Is it possible to speed up the release process of the entry about DOVID in any way? Thanks for your help!

InaJac (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InaJac As noted on your submission, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,987 pending submissions waiting for review." It's actually come down, it was five months last week. It's not a queue; volunteers pick drafts to review in no particular order, there is no way to "jump the line". You will need to be patient. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I now see your paid editing declaration; Wikipedia has no deadlines, and to be frank is unconcerned with any deadlines that have been imposed on you. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:47:43, 26 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir


Hello Help Desk. I am new in Wikipedia. I have researched and found info about Draft:M. Rezaul Hassan . He is one of the most renowned businessman on IT sector in Bangladesh. Moreover you can find many sources in it. I have submitted 3 times . Before that I was not aware of the fact that I should not create any page if it is on Draft space. However Honourable Administrators removed it and also marked the draft as Spam. I am really disappointed. I made tje article from my own sake. But unfortunately i used some promoting words . But I have removed them also. I am working on the draft. If it is deleted then my working will remain no value. If there is any citation problem I am also searching for it now. I hope help desk will remain kindfull on my work and let me have a time to proper citation and make the article don't like promotion .

MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir (talk) 08:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir. I specialize in writing about Bangladesh-related topics, and after a little research am confident that whatever you may think of Hassan, he is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Creating new articles is one of the most difficult, time consuming, and frustrating tasks a novice editor can attempt. That is particularly true of articles about living people and extant businesses. There are many easier ways to improve Wikipedia. If you want to help, check out WikiProject Bangladesh and/or the community portal for constructive ways to do so. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for kind direction. As I found others people in the same citeria in Bangladesh is noted in Wikipedia that's why I wrote about him. However , can I improve this article further ? Thank you again. MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MdEhsanulHaqueTanvir: If by "in the same citeria", you mean there are biographies of Bangladeshis with similar sourcing, tone, and achievements, then the right thing to do is to delete those other biographies (hundreds of Wikipedia articles are deleted every day), not write another one like them. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. I don't believe sources exist that make it possible to write a better biography of Hassan. The latest draft has been deleted. You could start again from scratch, but that would cause you further disappointment when the next draft is deleted. There are millions of other things you could write about. Repeatedly pursuing a topic against everyone's advice might be viewed as tendentious editing, which could result in the loss of your editing privileges. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:50:11, 26 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kashmir987


Dear Editor, Kashmir News Bureau is Multimedia news agency and prominent in India with more the 5 million Followers and readers. Kindly review the decision.


Kashmir987 (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmir987: folllowers don't help getting a Wikipedia article, indeependent reliable sources do. The current draft contains at most one, and is promotional in nature, at least in its About Kashmir News Bureau section. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:35:48, 26 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Kallu Kumhar



Kallu Kumhar (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:14, 26 May 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:B1C:2786:C83C:5978:B7CF:349E


2402:3A80:B1C:2786:C83C:5978:B7CF:349E (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, which means it will not considered further. Wikipedia is not a social network; you can use Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. to tell the world about yourself. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:40, 26 May 2021 review of submission by Ethiohistoryenthusiast


My draft was rejected for not having reliable sources but I am not sure why my resources were rejected as unreliable. Why are my sources unreliable? They are not only published books but are available to be viewed online.

Ethiohistoryenthusiast (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ethiohistoryenthusiast. It isn't obvious why the reviewer felt the submission wasn't adequately supported by reliable sources. Perhaps they didn't realize that one of the sources spells it Kourata instead of Korata. Possibly they were just having a bad day. I've undone their review as unsound and have returned the draft to the reviewing pool. You are welcome to continue improving it while you wait, or see Wikipedia:Community portal for millions of other ways to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and accepted.Theroadislong (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:10:17, 26 May 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:183C:6AF:0:1:E39C:3101


2402:3A80:183C:6AF:0:1:E39C:3101 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:09, 26 May 2021 review of submission by Prizwan5


Prizwan5 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prizwan5. Studying his LinkedIn and Publons profiles, and Google Scholar, I agree with the draft's reviewers that Patan is not notable at this time. The draft has been rejected, meaning that volunteers do not intend to review it again in the foreseeable future. Wikipedia is mainly interested in what other people have written about him, rather than what he has written. As his career progresses, more may be written about him in independent reliable sources. Reexamine the topic after he becomes a full professor. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

03:27:11, 27 May 2021 review of draft by Nhergert


Hello Wikipedia Editors, looking forward to better contributing on Wikipedia and understanding notability more correctly. I volunteer with a local non-profit journalism organization and thought it would be a good idea to note the <in my opinion substantial> work they have done so far on Wikipedia. While the Oregon Arts Watch article I have cited[1] is local, it does the best job of going in depth into the subjects and the intent behind the organization. The international news articles I cited [2][3] go less in depth, but I think they do a decent job of summarizing the interviews they had with the founder for their local audiences. All are independent to myself and the founder (and anyone on the team I think) and are not from any press releases.

If possible, I would like more specific advice as to why the page was rejected or if something was missed on either end. Looking at other recently accepted "local" non-profits, I got really confused when I found an article for North Dakota State Poetry Society, which seems to have none of the notability requirements listed in the help pages.

Also, it would be helpful if the original reviewer left more specific feedback in the review, instead of providing the generic template of a large list of issues that I need to try and reason through.

Much appreciated. Thanks! Nhergert (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Heuer, Friderike (2020-01-13). "The new history: Dreams Deferred". Oregon ArtsWatch. Retrieved 2021-05-26.
  2. ^ Casique, Emily (2020-01-10). ""Sueños Postergados" de los niños migrantes que llegan a USA". El Mundo USA. Retrieved 2021-05-26.
  3. ^ "Immigration illuminated". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2021-05-26.
Nhergert Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of the subject. Note that Wikipedia is not for merely telling about good works or merely telling about something. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Typically a draft should summarize at least three sources with significant coverage. You are welcome to ask the reviewer directly for more information on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot My intent was to provide the stub of the page along with citations to establish notability first before doing the work of summarizing their writeups in an accurate, unbiased way. I believe I read the help pages recommending that I do this strategy, but I can't find the reference right now. Regardless, I will consider whether to continue my efforts, and appreciate the advice. Thanks! Nhergert (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nhergert You don't have to provide the complete article for submission. But most reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage that establish notability has been met in order to accept a submission. It also needs to be written completely dispassionately; essentially dry and dull as possible. The first line is clearly written by someone with a COI- someone should be able to read it and not know that it was written by someone with a COI. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:21:55, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Derek Alexander


Derek Alexander (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Why was my article about Carlos Garrido declined or rejected from being approved & submitted? If anything, and if I want it to be approved, how can I change the name to Carlos Orlando Garrido? Because I am making this page for him as a trusted & reliable source of his and he doesn't always go by his first, middle & last name as his full name. Most of the times he uses his first & last name. And I even put his middle name in the description box of his birth name just like I did as well under his "early life & education" column of his article.

Derek Alexander The draft was not rejected, only declined, meaning that it is possible to resubmit it(as you did). However, it will be rejected again, because it has no sources. All articles, especially those about living people must be sourced to independent reliable sources. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. That should be done dispassionately, without language such as "Carlos Orlando Garrido is an American Actor, Director, Producer, Writer, Business Owner & Entrepreneur who is an up and coming performing artist & filmmaker on a journey for stardom.". Please see Your First Article.
You should also review conflict of interest so you can make the needed formal declaration. As for the article name, you may leave a note on the article talk page for the reviewer; when it is accepted it will be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:16, 27 May 2021 review of draft by KapowKapow


Hi there, I am attempting to learn the ropes of article creation by contributing fashion-related entries for brands and designers that are not currently represented in Wikipedia.

My latest submission was 'declined due to not being adequately supported by reliable resources'.

Would it be possible to get some examples of where I am going wrong? I have only used mainstream media outlets as sources and as far as I can tell, the quality of my sources doesn't differ from other fashion-related Wiki pages.

Thanks a lot for your help"

KapowKapow (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KapowKapow: Both the Daily Mail and the sun have been deprecated as a source and are regarded as unreliable. If they are in use elsewhere, this most likely means that they should be removed there as well. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:21:30, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Mediainchargecs


Hello!

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari (IAS) is the seniormost administrative officer having the rank of Chief Secretary in the executive branch of the government of the state of Uttar Pradesh, India.

Uttar Pradesh is the largest province in India with an estimated population of around 240 million. The state is both politically and geographically important, shares a long international border with Nepal and currently at the forefront of fight against Covid-19, and successfully beaten the second wave of infection, as compared to much developed and economically stronger provinces.

In addition, previous Chief Secretaries of Uttar Pradesh have Wikipedia pages of their own, link of which are given below.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahul_Bhatnagar

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajive_Kumar

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anup_Chandra_Pandey


Multiple references to the executive orders given by Mr. Rajendra Kumar Tiwari and carried by major News outlets of India, have been attached in the article.

I request you to kindly go through the article and links again and approve the article for publishing on your esteemed portal.

Thanks!

Mediainchargecs (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mediainchargecs If you work for or represent this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. The draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. There does not seem to be the significant coverage of him personally that is required for an article at this time, even if previous holders of his position merit articles.(see other stuff exists) He is a civil servant, not a politician. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:49:20, 27 May 2021 review of submission by PedarPadesha

I did fix the Citations and want to get a re-review for Kimia Sharbafian Musician biography page. thanks PedarPadesha (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation fixed please make a re-review. thanks PedarPadesha (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PedarPadesha. I don't read Farsi, but not a single one of the 25 or so English-language sources even mentions Sharbafian, let alone addresses her directly and in detail, which suggests that you don't grasp Wikipedia's requirements at all.
Rejection is meant to convey that you should stop, not create a new version, because the topic is hopeless. It is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). No amount of editing would make the draft acceptable. There is no option to re-submit because volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:04:35, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Msp7com


Msp7com (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:53:56, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Prem6361

i am new creator in wikipedia. it is my first time that i created a wikipage for a online food services company, but i do not understand exactly why my draft is declined. can i create page of this type of company or not. if not how can i create my page. please check and suggest in detail. Prem6361 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising...zero independent sources and no indication that they pass WP:NCORP are you connected to the company by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:04:47, 27 May 2021 review of submission by RealSpill123


RealSpill123 (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft (on your user page, which is not for drafting articles) was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It was wholly promotional. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:33:50, 27 May 2021 review of draft by Dellas777


Hello, I have a couple of questions about my Draft. In the reasons for declining the submission you have mentioned that it lacks independent, reliable sources. I would like to ask you which section (Bio, Accomplishments, Discography) of the Draft needs additional sources so I will be able to search for them and add. Thanks for your attention.11:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC) Dellas777 (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dellas777. The draft doesn't cite a single independent, reliable, secondary source that contains significant coverage of Arys. Replace the ones currently cited (all in the Biography and Accomplishments sections). Discographies are usually self supporting, in the sense that the disc itself or its packaging proves the artist's role in the disc. Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources contains a list of sources Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music. Equally important is identifying which criteria, if any, of WP:MUSICBIO Arys meets. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:25:12, 27 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Pszichoszemle


Can you please review my draft?

Pszichoszemle (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:42, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Pszichoszemle


I would like to ask for a review of my draft before publishing it to avoid decline

Pszichoszemle (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pszichoszemle: way too much in this Draft is sourced to the subject's Curiculum Vitea, see WP:ABOUTSELF Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:32:23, 27 May 2021 review of draft by ToruNitadori


I added some references at the "reference" term before last submission. However it was declined because of lack of secondary resources. These references are different website even if it is a same name. I can't understand how i can fix the problem. I think the number of references are enough. If it's not enough to match the regulation, I can add some references such as bellow. 

1. https://takumicraft.com/?page_id=325
2. https://kogeijapan.com/locale/en_US/echigoyoitauchihamono/
3. https://nippon-kichi.jp/article_list.do;jsessionid=5F8186FF37E54664969E960B23F7DDE9?p=5522&ml_lang=en

even though All websites write almost same thing. The technology comes from japan.


ToruNitadori (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:44, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Giuseppe Ardolino


Hello, I already submitted this draft and it has been declined. I would like to know in which section I need to improve in order to respect Wikipedia's guidelines and try to publish it. I already followed some feedback but the draft is considered not in line with a neutral approach, and I want to understand the reasons. I am available to make all necessary changes. Really thanks for your availability  Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On your user page you state “This is an account that I have set up to introduce the new page on Sadas company to explain its history, market, and clients” Please note that is NOT what Wikipedia is for.

Wikipedia is not for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia has no interest in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what others unaffiliated with the business choose to say about it(no press releases or announcements of routine business activities).Theroadislong (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:07:54, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Failure9x

I am asking for a specific indication of all the factors that make my article seem more an advertisement than an article in an encyclopedia. I do not know what to change in the article so that I can publish it. Failure9x (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Failure9x It's an advertisement because it just tells about the subject and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more; they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:28, 27 May 2021 review of draft by KevinLasing


How do I provide multiple independent reliable sources to show notabilities to publish this article on live space.? KevinLasing (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KevinLasing You find such sources and then provide them; a Wikipedia article should summarize what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. If such sources do not exist, the person would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. If you have a connection with this person, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:56, 27 May 2021 review of submission by 106.220.169.100


106.220.169.100 (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have no other edits other than this one; if you have an account, log in first- or otherwise please tell what it is that you want help with. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:21:11, 27 May 2021 review of submission by Positivity5631


I would like to re-submit this Wikipedia article. I understand that it has been rejected because its contents were similar to another Wikipedia page (the Harvard International Relations Council wiki page). I have suggested that the Harvard International Relations Council wiki page be split. The Harvard International Relations Council is an overarching body with several organizations. I believe it would be incredibly valuable for different organizations under the Harvard International Relations Council to have their own separate page. Thus, I have gone through the process of splitting the Harvard International Relations Council page. As it stands, it is too long and it has lots of information, and it would be useful for its sub-organization – such as the Harvard National Model United Nations – to have its own separate Wiki page. That way, the Harvard International Relations Council can serve as an organizing/overview page that can provide summaries for its sub-organizations and link readers to other more detailed pages that are specific to each organization.

I have already gone through the formal process of splitting the Harvard International Relations Council page and would appreciate guidance in order to finalize this process and submit the Harvard National Model United Nations page. Thus, I would link to respectfully ask for a re-review of this article.

Positivity5631 (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, so you should appeal to the last reviewer, though if you have split an article this shouldn't be necessary as the splitting process would have created the article. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:55:58, 27 May 2021 review of draft by Rosemary0807


Rosemary0807 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern with the grueling process of Wikipedia review.

Truthfully, I am quite frustrated and need a resolution. With all due respect, I am REALLY SICK of my submission being rejected. I have properly cited footnotes and 25 sources. If a couple of sources don't meet your guidelines, SO WHAT? There are 23 other sources on which to rely. Herbie J Pilato IS A NOTEWORTHY PERSON. He has his own show (entering Season 2) on Amazon Prime and Amazon Prime UK. He has written more than 15 books and has hundreds of published articles. He is an actor as well.

I have edited and re-edited my submission close to 10 times over the past 2 months. How many times does it have to be rejected?

May I please get some help from a friendly Wikipedia person who not only knows what they are doing but actually wants my submission to eventually be published? It feels like I am in the middle of some sort of game with people like Gene93K. If Wikipedia has more than 6 million approved entries, then Herbie J Pilato should be one of those. He is a SOMEBODY and I am a fan.

Thank you for your consideration of my irritation in this matter. As per your request, I will be happy to remove the IMDB and Authorpedia sources. But I also have sources from Newsday, the Omaha World-Herald, television societies, Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noteworthy publications.

Please give me some positive feedback and not just reasons for rejection.

I've responded at the Teahouse, please only use one method of seeking assistance, to avoid duplication of effort. The suggestion that reviewers don't know what they are doing is not helpful to your cause. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosemary0807 In terms of establishing notability, a lot of sources is actually a negative- fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. As I said at the Teahouse, it's not enough to just tell us about what this man has done, we want to know what others say about him. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

05:10:03, 28 May 2021 review of draft by Positiveilluminati


Positiveilluminati (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:39:40, 28 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Vollylee



Vollylee (talk) 06:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vollylee: Wikipedia may not be used for promotion of anything. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for things to watch out for. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am the staff of MIC, I have not done any promotional content. We don't have company page on wikipedia, so I created one. What's more, we don't need any wikipedia paid service.

Vollylee Wikipedia does not have "company pages"; it has articles about companies, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, but in what others completely unconnected with the company say about it. Your draft was blatant advertising.
Since you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing declaration; you should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:31:05, 28 May 2021 review of submission by 78.38.12.141


78.38.12.141 (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:43, 28 May 2021 review of draft by 24.255.75.126


I do not understand why my (autobiographical) article was rejected.

Thank you.

Mitchell James Kaplan


24.255.75.126 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:59:29, 28 May 2021 review of submission by 72.68.49.212

I added strongly references 72.68.49.212 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:57:36, 28 May 2021 review of submission by Tawianomlet


Hello,

I don't understand what went wrong. It's the leading piping company in India. Do I need to change the wordings??? Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finolex_Cables, it is more notable than it!

Tawianomlet (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong I did read it, but it says it's an essay. Those are not Rules, and I read that Rules can be improved/changed overtime, but that's not what I am talking about. It's fine that Finolex Cables is what I used in my defense, but that's only because it was a similar field. I have seen many American companies on Wikipedia that are far more less notable than my Draft, less references too. But they are kept because they are known in the US through word-of-mouth. This is not fair for other countries :/

I checked Finolex's history, it was nominated for deletion earlier and someone clearly said it is notable. I mean, these are the leading industry companies! Not startups! How can a not notable company earn in billions? If your restaurant is busy 24*7, then it means it's famous in the city. If a company, that also a piping company that sells stuff for less than a USD, earns in billions, then it means it has some significant presence in the country.

Is it possible to get a conses on this, including Indian editors?

Thank you!

If there's anything I can do with the wordings, then let me know because it reads normal to me.Tawianomlet (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawianomlet Please point out these other articles that you say are less notable; we can only address what we know about, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We could use the help in identifying inappropriate articles for action.
Wikipedia articles must do more than tell about a company, they must summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot It says that rejected Drafts are not suggested to be submitted again, where does it say that they are a gone case? I am trying to establish something here.

Technically, each article about a company will talk about its history, achievements, and legal cases. This is literally Wikipedia "telling" about a company. What have I done? I summarized what the sources said. That's how other companies are too.

And sure, I will put the notability and deletion tag on companies that seem to be not notable. But I wonder if that's gonna work because they will be known in the US through word-of-mouth.

Two such companies are these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Ice_Cream_Company, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garolini (Italian then US) Tawianomlet (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked a couple of your sources for Draft:Prince_Pipes_and_Fittings_Limited they failed verification, the sources do NOT say the company is the largest in India. Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to this on my talk page: Theroadislong A quick Google search will show it is amongst the top ones, I rewrote it as "one of the largest."

https://indiancompanies.in/top-10-pvc-pipe-manufacturers-in-india/ https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-list-of-top-10-PVC-pipe-manufacturers-in-India http://www.walkthroughindia.com/industry/15-manufacturing-companies-of-pvc-pipes-in-india/ https://www.indiasstuffs.com/best-pvc-pipe-fitting-companies-in-india/

These may be bad sources, but it does mean something.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tawianomlet (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawianomlet Telling about the company is only part of an article, you haven't established that this company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company, and in rejecting it the reviewer felt that the prospect of that happening is low. Please review the notability criteria carefully, with a focus on what sources are not acceptable for establishing notability.
You are fighting for this very hard, do you have a particular interest in this company? 331dot (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

331dot Then reject/delete other companies too. They are literally not notable compared to Prince Fittings. I do have a particular interest, not directly but I do.

Tawianomlet This is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. As I said, you are welcome to help us identify inappropriate articles for action. We can only address what we know about. Please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a volunteer too. I have started to put the tags. I am not connected to Prince Fittings? I have an interest in it. How to do the COI? And I am fighting hard because the decision was wrong. It is literally a notable company. 331dot Tawianomlet (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawianomlet Having an "interest" in a topic has a specific meaning for Wikipedia. You wrote "I do have a particular interest, not directly but I do." A conflict of interest would apply if you have a personal connection to the company, or people at the company, or reached out to the company to get information to compose the draft. If true, then on your User page you should describe the connection. If not, then state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Okays. Tawianomlet (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:38:43, 28 May 2021 review of submission by User98908655227


User98908655227 (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See answer below. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:42:39, 28 May 2021 review of submission by User98908655227


User98908655227 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is unsourced, no evidence of notability and rejected, will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:03, 28 May 2021 review of submission by User98908655227


User98908655227 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See answer above. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:56:57, 28 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jess.goodwin


Hello, my recent submission of the page John Paul Ataker was declined this morning because it was "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" and a comment was left saying "this is an advertisement". I put this page together on behalf of a client, who provided the copy and references.

They would very much like to have a Wiki page about their company, as many other high end clothing brands do, so if you could help me improve this article so it can be approved, it would be greatly appreciated.

Jess.goodwin (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jess.goodwin To be frank, Wikipedia is completely unconcerned with whether a potential subject wants an article or not, is completely unconcerned with its internet presence, helping potential customers, or similar. Those may be side benefits but not our goal. Our sole focus is on summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. It depends on the sources. The company website, staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, this is blatant advertising and I would have rejected it outright too " brand targets a fashion-forward clientèle" and "featured in influential fashion and celebrity publications' is NOT neutral tone for example. Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:50, 28 May 2021 review of draft by Kepler-1229b


This draft has been declined 3 times, but it is written like any other eclipse article, and the sources are the same website. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:39:37, 28 May 2021 review of draft by Thecr8tve


Hi,

My draft article has two errors that I cannot figure out how to fix. They are both under the References section. Entries #2 and #3 have the following written in red: Check |archive-url= value (help).

The References are links to archived New York Times articles. I am not sure how to fix this, can you help?

The article is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darryn_Melerine

Thank you!

Thecr8tve (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my assessment of the sources you proffer (guide):
Conclusion: You have not shown he is notable per our definition. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:34, 28 May 2021 review of submission by 2400:ADC1:1C1:1A00:C969:4F5C:8199:F965


2400:ADC1:1C1:1A00:C969:4F5C:8199:F965 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


He really inspire many------ https://natfluence.com/interview/salman-lakhani/


https://www.cubix.co/blog/cubix-university-internship-program-2021

Currently, none of the sources used are all three: reliable, independent of cubix and contain significant coverage of the subject (Press releases, Routine Anouncements, Interviews with staff, social media and most blogs commonly fail at least one of them). If such sources don't exist, we cannot have an article at this time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:34:46, 28 May 2021 review of submission by Samanminika


Samanminika (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the advice left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:16:32, 28 May 2021 review of submission by Derek Alexander


Derek Alexander (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


What is an example of "independent sources" that can be put under references? What makes a good "independent source"? What makes a good "independent source" qualifiable in order for his wiki article to be approved or accepted so that he can be notable? And how can I get an "independent source" to write more about Carlos Garrido so that he can become notable on wikipedia as well as appear on google like how most celebrities appear on Wikipedia & google? Because some user by the name @"Theroadislong" left two comments on my article, with one of them, if not both, being so silly & foolish saying that 1.) "zero independent sources, so zero chances of being acceptable." & 2.) "sources need to be independent NOT his own websites." And I have a comment about his comments as well as something to say about that - let me give you an example: Jason David Frank's business website "Rising Sun Karate School" is listed on his references side of his wikipedia page as an "independent source" that was created, added &/or edited by some anonymous user. So therefore, Carlos's company website should be considered as an "independent source." So that leads up to another follow up question: What makes Jason David Frank's business website qualified as an "independent source" under his wiki references, and not Carlos's business website? Carlos's business website IS an independent source, even if his official website may not be considered one. This is B.S., hypocritical, unfair & ridiculous.

Courtesy link Draft:Carlos Garrido. Theroadislong (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Derek Alexander: an independent source is one that is not connected to the subject. A personal website or a website of a company they work for or with is not independent. Now we don’t outright ban the use of primary sources such as personal websites we do limit their use to only verifying very simple facts such as a date of birth. A Wikipedia article should based on what others have said about the subject in published independent reliable sources, not what they say about themselves. If there is enough of this sort of coverage we then say they may be notable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

02:29:52, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Zeezoo17


Zeezoo17 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you jest? I don't see any evidence you've ever worked on a draft under this account. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:25:33, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Jericho347


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrea_M._Matwyshyn - This article was rejected by @CommanderWaterford citing it did not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC. Their rejection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jericho347#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation%3A_Andrea_M._Matwyshyn_%28May_2%29 I have posted a reply on the article talk page that outlines why I believe this decision to be incorrect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Andrea_M._Matwyshyn Per the rejection, it says I can ask her for additional guidance on this matter so I am requesting additional review of the page and if it meets criteria. If it does not, additional information beyond a few form-reply lines would be very helpful. Thank you.

Jericho347 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: CommanderWaterford can't respond to your concerns because he is currently blocked from editing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented at length at Draft talk:Andrea M. Matwyshyn. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:00:32, 29 May 2021 review of draft by 49.205.82.105


49.205.82.105 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing biographical content about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. None of your citations are in-line, as is required. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:31:28, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Sneha-SIPL


Hi, Need to request for re-review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shivani_Khetan, as the subject is having relevant references from authentic sources. She has won awards for her services and excellence mentioned below. Please review it again and let me know what can be done to improve it.

  1. Awarded Golden Book of World Records for Tarot a healing tool in modern times, as first coffee table book on tarot.
  2. Global Goodwill Ambassador (GGA) program from LinkedIn Company for volunteering program
  3. Peace 2019 International Awards

If https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitin_Soni this can be published then Dr. Shivani Khetan also be as there are many authenticate references of her works and experiences.

Sneha-SIPL (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Soni never went thru AfC, making that a very poor argument. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:37:23, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Sakander batth


Sakander batth (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:21:09, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Inspirenasim


Inspirenasim (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no sources, no article, no debate. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:05:56, 29 May 2021 review of draft by Ukuser691


Hello, I have made all requested changes to the draft and there are ample references and links to show that this person meets the requirements. If any further changes are required, please let me know. Many thanks

Ukuser691 (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not shown how they meet the criteria at WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:06:15, 29 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Danjensen137


I'm currently creating a Wiki page for someone and heard it's possible to add tags or keyword metadata into it. I can't find any information on how to do it, so I was hoping someone might be able to explain it to me.

Thanks in advance!

Danjensen137 (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Danjensen137: Depends on what you mean by keywords / metadata. If you mean things that would normally go into <meta name="keywords" content="..."> no, you don't. If you mean Categories, you can add them by creating an internal link to the category. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:35:21, 29 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by SageWRLD



SageWRLD (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:36:41, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Jyotsanaj03

Hello. I have been trying to publish this article for Sanjeev and I work in his team. I would like to bring to your notice that the links in the references should re reviewed. All the links come from a reliable source. There is a link in which the Prime Minister of the country is speaking about Sanjeev. There Are articles from Hindustan Times and Ted's official website. Either please specifically help me understand how do you think it is not notable. As, for the current content of the page, there is no reference that does not support what we have written. Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotsanaj03 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, and no amount of editing will confer notability on this person. That the PM mentioned him does not confer notability on him, see WP:NOTINHERITED.
If you work for him, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing declaration. Please also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:54:50, 29 May 2021 review of draft by 2409:4041:E85:520F:8BE6:DFC0:84BE:6A3C


I don't understand where my mistake for publishing article 2409:4041:E85:520F:8BE6:DFC0:84BE:6A3C (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please compare what you have created to WP:NPOL FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:51:34, 29 May 2021 review of submission by Reesashukla


Reesashukla (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what is criteria to create a page of book al wikipedia? please guide me.

@Reesashukla: please read WP:YFA and return to this sectiomn if this talk page (unless it has been archived) wioyth any further questions FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:14:23, 29 May 2021 review of submission by 37.153.190.90


37.153.190.90 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. repeatedly submitting a draft without changing anything or taking advice is disruptive. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:39, 29 May 2021 review of submission by WriticBee


WriticBee (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:03:53, 29 May 2021 review of submission by 95.104.81.155


95.104.81.155 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We can't use streaming sites or online storefronts as sources under any circumstance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

Request on 05:35:06, 30 May 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Iamthekanadian


Here's the story. I'm new. I work for a charity, LiveWorkPlay. We had an article on Wikipedia for probably ten years. I didn't create it or edit but I was aware of it I just discovered it had been deleted. It seemed mainly because some didn't like the sourcing many of the links to media sources had expired so fair enough. I asked for undelete but this didn't seem likely. So I got the advice to create new Draft:LiveWorkPlay. I declared conflict of interest. I worked on the article for about 6 hours. I used 95% secondary sources. For my troubles I got accused of being a paid editor and also a very long message saying that the article read like an advertisement and too many internal sources - I have degrees in history education and linguistics - to me the content was blandly factual and excessively sourced - other feedback - not notable enough - too promotional - help.me understand how to demonstrate "notability" but avoid being "promotional" - the article certainly isn't going to sell anything or make money for anyone. All facts stated are sourced. I've looked at other articles for similar organizations and frankly they seem totally inferior - not nearly as well sourced and read like a brochure.

I don't understand what I was supposed to do - very aggressive comments about my being a "paid editor" I was given the advice to write the article - how else does it happen? I asked for help and other people did help edit - I feel like a criminal and I'm just not getting what that's all about. My preference was to try to fix the old article. I didn't want to write it. I thought what I wrote was pretty solid. And the criticism didn't match up to the article I am really upset and confused about the accusation of the references being self generated when they are not they are almost 100% secondary and I'm not getting paid one penny - I declared the conflict of interest immediately which seems fair but the insistence on paid editor does not. Ultimately after all this I'd just like to see an acceptable article. If someone can do that - because I clearly don't understand the sourcing and promotional issues - that would be great.


Iamthekanadian (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I was forced into identifying as a paid editor. I have read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure over and over. I do work for the organization in the article. But I sm absolutely NOT being paid directly or indirectly for anything to do with Wikipedia. In was accused of being some sort of dark operative I never hid that I worked for the organization and I disclosed it immediately as a conflict of interest. In was told the article could not be edited or approved if I did not identify as a paid editor. I do not underhand why I was accused in this way and forced in this way. I would like this to be removed. Other editors have already volunteered to ensure neutrality. This has been a very negative and punitive experience.


Iamthekanadian (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamthekanadian You have found out the hard way that diving right in to creating an article(the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia) without any experience in editing Wikipedia in general often leads to hurt feelings and disappointment as things happen to your work that you don't understand. It would be like building a house without knowing anything about electrical work, plumbing, getting permits, or anything about the process itself. I'm sorry this has happened.
You do meet the definition of a paid editor. Any paid editing relationship with a subject you are editing about must be disclosed per the Terms of Use. You do not have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
You have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others completely unconnected with the organization choose to say about it. Most of the sources you have offered are not acceptable for establishing notability, because they are brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, or similar sources. Please review the notability criteria for more information, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, respectfully, I have degrees in history, education, and linguistics and have written articles for journals, and I've been a Wikipedua user for I guess 15+ years, so it's not quite like the plumbing analogy, but thanks for the help.

Where does it say that anyone who is employed by an organization is a paid editor? Like, the plumber who works for the Buccaneers can't edit the Buccaneers page without declaring as a paid editor?

I have read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure five times and that's not what I'm seeing.

As for the article itself, it seems like a few neutral people have had a go at it - I guess you are saying the third party sources aren't significant enough - that's obviously an opinion to which you are entitled but that's a far cry from the accusation that I used internal sources and was engaged in dark ops. But I get it. I'm the basis guy. Thanks again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthekanadian (talk • contribs)

Iamthekanadian I don't see where you were "accused of dark ops", but please understand that many paid editors are very sneaky and that may cause other editors to be jaded. We have no way to know what your employer has told you(i.e. whether to edit or not, whether you are "on the clock" or not) this is why any paid relationship with a subject must be disclosed- as lomg as conceivably you could be editing as part of your job duties(even if you actually aren't, again, we have no way to know this). You created this account three days ago so I was going by that history. It's still the case that many readers don't understand what actually goes into an article- even ones who are professional writers in other areas, because Wikipedia writing is very different. I've dealt with journalists and other professionals who had great difficulty here despite success in their careers. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will reiterate that I had IMMEDIATELY declared a conflict of interest, which makes sense. I even disclosed IMMEDIATELY that I worked for the organization. The policy on paid editors is not as clear as some seem to think it is - why not just say "If you work for Disney as a ticket taker, if you edit Cinderella you have to identify as a paid contributor." Seems like that would be very clear. I'm no genius but I can't be the first person to read the terms and reach a different conclusion. And yes I was accused of dark ops despite IMMEDIATELY being fully transparent. I think I was lucky enough to find at least one editor who just wants to address any deficiencies and not accuse me or insult me so hopefully it works out and it's not just a bad experience.

My mistake I don't see "black ops" only "dark hat." It was part of a very long lecture about my deficits and I musremembered it. Apologies.

08:58:12, 30 May 2021 review of draft by 178.112.35.225


Please perform a quick review of this article. It seems to be important! 178.112.35.225 (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft and it is pending; as noted, "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,794 pending submissions waiting for review." There is no way to guarantee a speedy review; do you have a particular need for one? 331dot (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As such, Wikipedia would profit from an article about this person, so I think! Thank you. - 178.112.35.225 (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Search engines and The Sun are not acceptable sources (the former is too sparse and the latter is deprecated). I cannot assess the Financial Times or Der Standard sources because they are walled. https://meaww.com/who-priscila-bergmair-pornhub-tycoon-bernd-bergmair-wife-quit-company-child-abuse is too sparse on details about Bernd specifically. Only the Dossier source is acceptable of the four I can assess. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:30, 30 May 2021 review of draft by SCarolinagal


How do I add a title to my draft? I started writing in sandbox and am not sure how to change the title from my user sandbox to an actual title. SCarolinagal (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC) SCarolinagal (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SCarolinagal Changing a title requires a page move; if you submit your draft and it is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. In the future, if you use Articles for creation to create a draft, you can pick the title then. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:54:32, 30 May 2021 review of submission by Indianheros


Indianheros (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please give some advice that how to improve the article

16:00:15, 30 May 2021 review of draft by JMKrasuski


I’ve created this page as a record of the history of a nonprofit organization and I followed the format of a multitude of other Wikipedia pages covering similar nonprofits, so I am not sure how to go about making the wording sound less like an “advertisement” for a business as the page rejection stated, and more like an encyclopedia article. It contains unbiased content, simple and straightforward stated facts about the organization and its history, and has a lot of resources to demonstrate the historical accuracy. I would love any help or advice I could get to bring this page to the public.

JMKrasuski (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JMKrasuski The draft is an advertisement because it just tells about your organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, but in what others completely unaffiliated with it choose on their own to say about it. "Significant coverage" does not include things like staff interviews, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, press releases, any materials put out by the organization, or other primary sources.
I see that you are writing about your own organization- this is usually very difficult for people in your position to do as required by Wikipedia. Successfully creating a new article is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia- and it's even more difficult with a conflict of interest. We don't want just basic facts- any organization may give those on its own website or social media accounts. Please read Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:58:21, 30 May 2021 review of draft by Emat20211


Create this article please


Emat20211 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help for create this article: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse , thanks! Emat20211 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)Ezemat20211[reply]

@Emat20211: Please review all of the URL's in this draft. URL's must not contain spaces, and when they do, this needs to be replaced with %20. I don't want to use find&replace to do that because I couldn't infer the correct version for the first few URLs I have tested. When I highlight the URL in my browser and open it in a new tab, it needs to bring up exactly the page you were looking at. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt: Clever! I've already corrected everything you mentioned to me about URLs and other things. Thanks for pointing me out! Now if you are going to be able to create the article Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse with peace of mind and check the references and quotes about Ezequiel Matthysse. Thank you very much again and I hope you notify me when my draft Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse is finally published on wikipedia (it takes a lot of work). Thank you very much again and God bless you!

20:45:09, 30 May 2021 review of draft by 2603:3023:802:8F00:71D3:85CA:2CD:9E08


My article submission keeps getting declined due to lack of citations. I have seen articles for people that are less notable than Jimmy Bontatibus, so I'm having trouble figuring out what kinds of citations I need? I have linked to many reputable film websites and reviews and keep getting my draft declined. Thanks! 2603:3023:802:8F00:71D3:85CA:2CD:9E08 (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of your sources either have a connexion to subject or no editorial oversight (i.e. IMDb) and thus are useless for notability. Only the rogerebert.com source comes close to helping for notability, and it alone cannot do that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:18, 30 May 2021 review of draft by Hatebomb76


hello, this draft page already exists in the article space. Can this draft paged be merged, redirected to Jeff Janiak or deleted ? thanks

Hatebomb76 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatebomb76: Since all the content is already in article space, I'd recommend just clicking "edit" on the draft and adding {{Db-g7}} to the top. Once you do this, someone will come along and delete the article for you. Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

03:47:03, 31 May 2021 review of draft by Emat20211


@Emat20211: You are not asking a question, but if you are requesting a review of the draft, you have already done that by submitting the draft for review. Please stop posting to user talk pages and help/discussion pages such as this one asking for a review. (See also my response to you on my user talk page.) Regards --bonadea contributions talk 05:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:13:49, 31 May 2021 review of draft by Vdpankajjain


Vdpankajjain (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:16:51, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Jyotsanaj03

I have stated all the information. Provided all the references and i strongly believe that this article should be published. Please suggest what needs to be edited here so that you make sure the article gets published after that. Jyotsanaj03 (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined 6 times and rejected twice, it will not be considered further please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion due to the history, including immediate resubmission after decline with no further improvements made and removing declines. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:28:51, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Dogmusic45


Dogmusic45 (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dogmusic45 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have a question, please add it to this section. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:22:57, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Muhamamd saeed meo

Dear team i make a page Muhamamd Saeed Meo that is deleted but i m confuse why this page is not approved. regards

Muhamamd saeed meo (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamamd saeed meo Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves or post their resume. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. Please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:27, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Gastion1


I'm told that: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However,I have included 20 references which include UK national newspapers, UK regional newspapers, and numerous articles from reputable foreign newspapers and magazines, plus some pieces in industry specific magazines relevant to the history of the subject of my page. I am baffled with regard to what more I am required to do, or where I am going wrong. If you could give me some clarification I would really appreciate it.

Gastion1 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gastion1 The reason for the last decline was that the citations you have provided are not in-line as required. Please review referencing for beginners to learn about how to format and place citations. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:03, 31 May 2021 review of draft by 71.187.40.39


My submission was declined because it "reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia," "needs to be written from a neutral point of view," and should refer to "independent, reliable, published sources." As far as I can tell, it is written from a neutral point of view and does refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." Can you please tell me what specifically does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view and what specific sources need to be removed and/or replaced? Many thanks for your help.

71.187.40.39 (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that the draft just tells about Mr. Burger and what he does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It isn't enough to just tell us(for example) that he has interviewed notable people(as notability is not inherited by association), but if those interviews were significant in some way, or others have written about his skill as an interviewer, something like that. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:51, 31 May 2021 review of draft by Shirish121067


Shirish121067 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. Please edit this section to add your question. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:45, 31 May 2021 review of submission by 2402:3A80:1823:6117:0:15:37F9:3301


2402:3A80:1823:6117:0:15:37F9:3301 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:39:15, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Saarif Farooqui


Saarif Farooqui (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:29, 31 May 2021 review of submission by Emat20211


Hi, could you check Draft: Ezequiel Matthysse and create it as a wikipedia article? Thanks for your help! Emat20211 (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Emat20211[reply]

Emat20211 You have submitted it and it is pending. It will likely be some time, you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:42:34, 31 May 2021 review of draft by 217.149.171.75


Everything stated in this article is sourced! I know there is only one source, but he is long dead and it is just not possible to find more about him. However, his name is attached to an important equation in mathematical physics and people should at least be able to find out some basic information about him in this context (at least this was my motivation for creating this page). He exists on WP in six other languages (arz,es,fr,pl,pt,ru) demonstrating that other WP projects consider the present information sufficiently sourced! I tried to talk to the admin denying this page, however, to no avail. There are several similar requests on the users's talk page but this user does not seem to reply to other users questions. So does this mean my work was in vain? Mathuvw (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1026125357"