Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help
desk
Backlog
drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

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

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


June 20[edit]

03:50:27, 20 June 2022 review of submission by SEOGURUvai[edit]


SEOGURUvai (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked and draft deleted. 0xDeadbeef 04:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:31:39, 20 June 2022 review of submission by Golusingh1410[edit]


How can i list our Business on wikipedia - Like Nyka, Sunpharma that is alreay listed

Golusingh1410 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golusingh1410: that's really more of a question for the TEAHOUSE; the AfC help desk deals with drafts going through the AfC review process. But since you're here, I will signpost you towards Your first article, which tells you all you need to know to get started. You also need to disclose, before you even get started, your Conflict of Interest including paid editing if you're employed by this 'our business' you refer to, or otherwise remunerated for your edits either directly or indirectly. (I will post a notice on your user talk page that tells you more.) And finally, you should not publish anything directly into the main article space, due to your apparent COI, and must instead submit your drafts through this AfC channel. Best, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Seems you've tried and failed; you might have mentioned. Clearly you've already discovered how not to do this, namely by writing promotional content — that is completely unacceptable in an encyclopaedia. It may be that you simply cannot be objective and dispassionate enough about your business to write about it, but if you do want to give it one more go, you should try to write the way your competitors would describe you, ie. without any promotional twist. Or better yet, simply summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about your business. If you cannot do that, and cannot find such sources, then you should probably drop the whole idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:35, 20 June 2022 review of submission by Ruotsi 09[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hello My article was accepted by The Most Comfortable Chair at 05:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC). Thank you very much!

I'm informing that there is an error in the title of the page and also in the URL itself.


The real name of the artist is "Canal Cheong Jagerroos" without accent over the "a". It it possible to change Jägerroos -> Jagerroos?

Here is the link to my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Cheong_J%C3%A4gerroos

Thank you very much in advance! Have a great summer --Ruotsi 09 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Ruotsi 09 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, the article can be moved. (I understand why the error happened, but sources do use Jagerroos and not Jägerroos – note also that "ä" is not an accented "a".) Thanks for the heads-up. --bonadea contributions talk 18:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I have never, ever heard of the name Jagerroos, and also she appears to have got her name from her husband Johan Jägerroos, so by that fact alone Jagerroos would seem to be incorrect. But as Bonadea says, the sources do use Jagerroos, and of course everyone has the right to call themselves whatever they want, so let's go with that. (In any case, a redir from Jägerroos should take care of both eventualities.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:23:48, 20 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gfxseries[edit]


citation valid for my article as i have many citation but all are being not validated by reviewer on wiki so need help in drafting the article draft:ceno (rapper). Kindly do asap i really need that publication.


Gfxseries (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Gfxseries (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The single source you have is a press release which is not independent or reliable so contributes nothing to establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21[edit]

04:09:23, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Golusingh1410[edit]

how can i list our business on wikipedia

Golusingh1410 (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Golusingh1410: do you plan on asking this daily? Did you even read my reply to your previous question?
TL;DNR = you probably cannot "list [y]our business on wikipedia" (sic). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:07:43, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Bharatguntu[edit]

I Have submitted all details , tell me where i went wrong and review is taking longer time.

Bharatguntu (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatguntu Unreleased films do not merit articles per WP:NFF, unless there is something very unusual and notable about the production of the film itself(see Rust (suspended film) for an example). In three days when it will apparently be released, it will merit an article. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:53:09, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Nabenmes[edit]

My post on "Breakthroughs in Longevity Technologies" was rejected due to the mention of futuristic lonevity scenarios which are mostly hypothetical at this stage. Fair enough, and I thank the reviewer for taking the time to give input.

I did update the page, and removed all references to any use-case happening in the future. All techs stated on the page right now are in-market and companies of all sizes are leveraging the same to solve world's taughest health problems.

Appreciate you taking a look at the page again and giving feedback. Thank-you! Nabenmes (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nabenmes: this reads very much like a magazine article or perhaps a webinar script, whereas Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Possibly some of the content in your draft could be used to create an encyclopaedia entry — then again, possibly not — but this would require a wholesale rewrite, which is beyond the scope and remit of this help desk. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - I’ll do my best to get it right.
I’ll scale down the content as much as possible and make it brief enough to get through the initial approval wall and we (the healthcare community) iterate on the content front there. Does that sound good? Nabenmes (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No comment, except to remind you that the draft has been rejected, meaning there is no automatic right to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What’s the next step, and how can I take this forward? Nabenmes (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the topic is covered in Life extension, I suggest you add well sourced content to that article instead. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I went through the life extension content, i think it is quite informative and I enjoyed reading through it. However, our goal here is to have a page dedicated to the technology side of longevity medicine, which is the foundation for existing and upcoming healthcare breakthroughs.
Ultimately, in the future, all medicine related content in Wikipedia would point to our page for technology related reference.
I hope this makes sense! I look forward to partnering with you folks to get this page out to the world.
Thank-you for the opportunity! Nabenmes (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say "our goal here" please note that user accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabenmes: I think you need to drop this idea; the more you say about your plans and goals, the less convinced I am that there is an acceptable draft likely to come out of this. "In the future all medicine related content in Wikipedia would point to our page"? No, not going to happen; nobody gets to monopolise any content area. And in any case, there is no "our" page (whoever you mean by that; cf. Theroadislong's previous point), as you do not 'own' any article even if you were the one who originally created it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for the misunderstanding. It is less about monopolizing content and more about enabling re-usability and sharing information. Think about it - a page summarizing foundational techs leveraged as building blocks to accelerate breakthroughs and discoveries that come on top and across different field areas in longevity medicine.
Folks, let’s keep the conversation productive. No one has commercial incentives here to drive monopolization or ownership. Only good intention!
I am going to re-edit the content and resubmit - would you gents help me review it please? :-) Nabenmes (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabenmes: Think about it - a page summarizing foundational techs leveraged as building blocks to accelerate breakthroughs and discoveries that come on top and across different field areas in longevity medicine Um. I'm sorry, but speaking for myself, that's not really something I can think about! It's a string of (mostly) empty jargon that doesn't add up to anything – could you rephrase it, please? On the other hand, enabling re-usability and sharing information sounds pretty much like what Wikipedia aims to be, so you won't find any dissenting opinions there.

I'm the reviewer who rejected your draft; one reason was, as you say, that it focused on hypothetical future developments, but that was not the only reason. Did you have a chance to read this policy, which was linked from the rejection notice? In particular, read the section on synthesis, because from what you are saying here it sounds like your aim is to create a new resource that discusses and compares different technologies in a novel manner. And that's definitely not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is intentionally not positioned at the bleeding edge of innovation – and when it comes to biomedical information, there are strict policies on what kind of information is appropriate to include (this information is crucially important). Finally, if you do decide to submit your draft again, nobody will stop you from doing so, but please don't ask reviewers for preferential treatment ("would you gents help me review it please"). Sorry if I come across all curmudgeonly, but if you submit it for review, it will show up among the waiting drafts, and it will be reviewed at some point. (Not necessarily by a gent.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: you say you removed all references to any use-case happening in the future which I mistakenly interpreted to mean that the draft no longer made predictions about future hypothetical situations. But that's clearly not the case; the draft is still very much a case of crystalballing. (A detail which puzzles me is that in the first sentence of the draft, "Modern medicine in the 20th century benefited from unprecedented scientific breakthroughs, resulting in improvements in every aspect of healthcare", "healthcare" links to healthcare industry rather than to health care.) --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you so much for the detailed feedback. I will re-phrase the content and resubmit as soon as possible. Nabenmes (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nabenmes There is also a problem with respect to the inadequate detail of the contents. To say merely "Digital polymerase chain reaction accurately detects pathogens and gene mutations." is a totally inadequate summary of what DPCR is, what it does,and what it is currently used for, and what it might be potentially usable for. Similar is the case for every one of the items included: the material provides essentially no information, aand what there is provided is inadequate or inaccurate. It amounts to a mere list of topics, and the links in our general articles procvde this is a better manner. WP is intended for the general public, and the minimal level of sophistication for scientific articles is is that of an advanced high school or college student, though some of our science articles try to at least provide an even more accessible summary.
If one were to attempt to summarize this material for , say, a junior high school student, ot would still take more than one sentence on each topic, and cague generalities. If you want to work in this field, my advice to you is to first read and understand all of our generally excellent articles on the subject that the current sketch links to, or to take an appropriate college level academic course, or the equivalent. First understand the material, and then pick an appropriate small area where we may have insufficient coverage, and expand it. I've taught molecular biology for years at the university level in an earlier phase of my career: it's a fascinating subject, and deserves the work you will need to do in order to master it. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
This is my 1st WP publication, I am more than willing to learn from the experts and improve.
Thanks for your feedback! Nabenmes (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:30, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Cyan2021[edit]


Hello! I'm hereby kindly asking for a reviewer (or several reviewers) with good understanding of the German language to have a look at my Draft:WebID Solutions.

Back in July 2021 I submitted the draft for review. It was rejected by now blocked User:Hatchens, who has accepted drafts in return for undisclosed payments, see WT:AFC#User:Hatchens. Thus, I decided to contact User:331dot on his talk page (User talk:331dot#Draft:WebID Solutions), and he said that "out of a desire for fairness, he would be willing to allow me to resubmit the draft". I cannot do this myself (otherwise I would have already done this); only AFC reviewers seem to be able to resubmit the draft in the name of the original submitter.

Now, the problem is that I have cited several high-quality, German language sources which I believe are WP:SIRS-compliant, (i.e they are secondary, independent, reliable and cover the topic significantly), but User:331dot told me that he cannot read German, and that he thinks that the sources are not independent, based on a Google translation. There also might be some fundamental cross-national or cross-cultural differences here, so I would really appreciate if a reviewer with good understanding of German, or even a native DACH reviewer had a look at the draft and see whether or not the sources are actually WP:SIRS-compliant.

The draft's best three sources per WP:THREE would be Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (citation 3), Handelsblatt (citations 9, 12), and Tagesspiegel (citation 26). I have also cited Wirtschaftswoche (citation 2, 7), Heise (citation 6), Frankfurter Neue Presse (citation 17), Börsen-Zeitung (citation 13), Rheinische Post (citations 8, 16, 20), and Bundesanzeiger (citations 11, 14, 15). I can send PDF copies of these sources to reviewers if that's necessary.

Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyan2021: as Theroadislong has already said in the comments, interviews and press releases etc. are not independent; so while (some of) the publications cited are undeniably RS, there is more to it than that. Most of the sources look to me like routine business reporting on a ROTM company, at best.
On a separate but related point, there is very little if anything of encyclopaedic value in this draft, once you strip out the marketing and 'company presentation' type blurb. I appreciate your client would dearly want this to be included, but Wikipedia has little or no interest in publishing such content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been given various advice that is not really related to my draft. I totally understand that sources such as Wikipedia, press releases, or interviews cannot be cited in Wikipedia articles. This is why I have based the article on WP:SIRS-compliant sources instead. What I don't understand is why people keep telling me about the aforementioned "Don'ts": See, User:Theroadislong commented on the draft that I cannot cite Wikipedia as a source (Special:Diff/1092305151), and it seems bizarre to me. It just makes no sense, because I haven't cited Wikipedia as a source. Then he told me that interviews and press releases are not independent, reliable sources (Special:Diff/1092305151); again, why would a reviewer do this? None of the cited sources are actual interviews. There is also only one press release citation (out of 31 total citations) in the entire draft and it is even a double citation, i.e. had I removed it prior to his comment, there wouldn't have been a single press release source cited.
I understand that analysing and evaluating the sources might be challenging because they are mostly German sources (both in terms of language, and journalistic culture). I can also see why someone not used to German sources would believe that the sources are interviews. What the sources basically do is discuss a certain topic, and sometimes ask people involved (e.g. WebID Solution's managing directors). In case of the latter, the sources discuss and evaluate what the people involved said, i.e. how truthful or factually correct the said things are. It doesn't work like interviews where the interviewed persons can freely promote their own opinion. It also doesn't work like these cases where a firm's managing director dictates the journalist's article, and where the journalist only provides his name, but not the article itself
Frankly, I didn't expect that the German sources would raise so much concern and misunderstanding. I still believe that a reviewer used to German language sources would know or understand what I described above. Possibly, there is a list or category of German AFC reviewers that we could notify? Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am no expert, I think I know enough German to help with subjects like this, as I'm familiar with the deWP style for articles like this, and their referencing methods, and it's possible to distinguish between promotional and informative text by format in any language. (For an interview, some of the ways of judging is the specificity of the answers, and the extent of duplication.) I shall take a look.
ICyan, I and other AfC reviewers have unfortunately been necessarily focussed primarily on removing the utter junk and the worst promotionalism , and I recognize this may not do justice to situations requiring more careful consideration. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I have previously mentioned, I'd happily convert all the citations to a uniform CS1 using the citation templates, if that'd be of help. Best regards, --Cyan2021 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:33:04, 21 June 2022 review of submission by 707paneone[edit]

Requesting examples of info to add/void to pass approval 707paneone (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and won't be considered further.
You should also declare any conflict of interest you have regarding this subject or that of Draft:1Notch. I've posted a message on your user talk page with instructions on how to do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:08:42, 21 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Erumkhan07[edit]


The reviewer labelled the citations I submitted as "PR puff". With all due respect, how else can someone talk about an entrepreneur and his company, who have had 10 million plus downloads of their apps on the app stores? Media houses across the world like to spice up their news reports, as and when they cover such stories, to attend to their audience's tastes. Guidance in this matter will be surely appreciated. Thank you! Erumkhan07 (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Erumkhan07 If you work for or are associated with Mr. Khan, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of a person and what they do. Any article about Mr. Khan 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. His company's products having a large number of downloads might merit the company an article if there were sufficient coverage of the company, but not him. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling us about him and goes into detail as to why he is significant or influential in his field. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @331dot for the explanation! I understand why you think there is a conflict. I am not personally associated with Mr. Khan in any way. Just happen to have the same surname. Our only connection is that he is a graduate from the same college as I (10 years before I graduated). I hope this helps. I will try and create an article for the company instead? Erumkhan07 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @331dot do independent app review articles like these work as citations?
    https://www.apppicker.com/applists/28073/The-best-slots-apps-for-the-iPhone
    Erumkhan07 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how independent or reliable these app reviews are (it describes itself as a blogging site), but as already mentioned we need to see significant coverage of the draft subject, ie. the person in question, and I would be surprised if an app review provided that. Therefore I'm pretty sure the answer is no, this is not an appropriate source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:52, 21 June 2022 review of draft by 81.109.141.186[edit]


81.109.141.186 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been editing a draft article and I have a couple of questions. Firstly, it is worth declaring a conflict of interest as I am currently interning for the organisation in question. Other interns have produced Wiki articles in the past, but these have been written in a biographical style and have used insufficient references. I have adapted the language to better reflect that which is usually seen on Wikipedia, and have included a wider range of independent sources. Could you tell me what improvements need to be made before I submit it please? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Next_Century_Foundation81.109.141.186 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you very much must declare your COI and probably also paid editing. I see that 331dot has already left a comment in the draft, signposting you to the relevant guidance. And if your employer is in the habit of getting interns to edit Wikipedia for them, you may wish to make them aware of this policy for future reference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Worth noting that this is *not* paid editing as I am in a voluntary position, though. Could you direct me to a means of declaring a COI? 81.109.141.186 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PAID (s.2), interns are expressly included under the paid-editing disclosure requirements.
You will find instructions on how to disclose both your COI and paid status at WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:34:33, 21 June 2022 review of draft by BethanyGraceAB[edit]


Hi, how do I ask for someone to review my draft? I added a COI declaration to the talk page for my article, so does someone review that separately or when I resubmit? Thanks

BethanyGraceAB (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BethanyGraceAB: when you feel the draft is ready, you request a review by (re-)submitting it; just click that blue button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you for explaining, I appreciate it! BethanyGraceAB (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:40:23, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara[edit]


Avi4zara (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , im Avi4zara and im a fornite content creator and my page is Avi4zara . im not lying in any such way i do have an article and it there under references why did my page got got decline im not destory or faking a page

15:47:39, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara[edit]


Avi4zara (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:47:39, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara {{Lafc|username=Avi4zara|ts=15:47:39, 21 June 2022|link= Avi4zara Hi how are you , im Ashvir and the the creator of Avi4zara page i didnt not lie or damage anything i do have an article and it under references so i dodnt say anything why does other streamer have a wiki page Avi4zara (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi4zara: your draft was speedily deleted, and the v.2 has been rejected, for being nowhere near notable enough to warrant an article. In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself; this is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site or some other self-publicity platform. My advice is to drop it now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:17:45, 21 June 2022 review of submission by OrdinaryEngineer[edit]


OrdinaryEngineer (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryEngineer: do you seriously have a question as to why this was rejected? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:21, 21 June 2022 review of draft by MaryharreldSLP[edit]


MaryharreldSLP (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Hello, I am having trouble submitting our wikipedia page for David Greenbaum. Our other president at Searchlight Pictures Matthew Greenbaum has a page, so we are trying to get both of them one.[reply]

@MaryharreldSLP:
Firstly, when you say "our wikipedia page", there is no "our", since you don't own the page in any sense of the word. Also, saying "we" and "our" suggests there may be more than one of you editing: please note that Wikipedia user accounts are for one individual's use only.
Secondly, you haven't declared your conflict of interest (COI) and possible paid editing, that I can see at least. Please do so now, before editing any further. I can see that on your talk page you say you are "not being paid for this", but based on what you say here it does sound like you are being at least indirectly benefiting from your edits. See WP:COI and WP:PAID for more info.
Thirdly, just because an article exists on your "other president", is no reason why there should be one on Greenbaum. Maybe there will be, maybe there won't — either way, this depends on whether he is notable in Wikipedia terms, and whether an article can be put together that complies with all the relevant policies and guidelines, not on whether his colleague has one. And the draft, as it currently stands, is insufficiently referenced, for one thing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MaryharreldSLP also read other poor quality articles exist the Matthew Greenfield article like your draft was very poorly sourced and promotional, I have reduced it to a stub. Theroadislong (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22[edit]

01:35:37, 22 June 2022 review of submission by Ikigai2009[edit]

Hi, I would like to know if the article citations and references are insufficient, or are they viewed as not of notable sources? If I can have some feedback on the writing style that would also be much appreciated.Ikigai2009 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Ikigai2009 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikigai2009: no, they're not; they are press release regurgitations and other primary sources.
Also, that large table with the cohort companies has no place here. We are not interested in who is taking part in this incubator (unless, perhaps, the companies in question are independently notable, which they almost by definition wouldn't be). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. Will definitely remove the table, and look at how the copy can be improved.Ikigai2009 (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:20:09, 22 June 2022 review of submission by Pnamdar[edit]

Hello, already placed disclosure on top of draft. May I please ask for advice to get approved? Thank you.

Pnamdar (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pnamdar: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered again. No chance of approval, hence no point in editing; you'd be merely flogging a dead horse.
And staying with the equine theme: placing the paid contributor notice now is somewhat akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. (Not to mention, shutting it incorrectly.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:52:22, 22 June 2022 review of draft by MelanieNavarroJr[edit]


MelanieNavarroJr (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who can I pay to make me a wikipedia article? There's plenty of scammers now adays and I need someone legit. :(

Sorry MelanieNavarroJr, we don't encourage paid editing here and cannot answer the above question. Justiyaya 11:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieNavarroJr: I'll add that a quick Google search doesn't turn up enough independent sources to show that the singer meets our notability guidelines. You shouldn't waste your time, or you'll be taken advantage of. You can read WP:GNG for more info. This article has repeatedly been recreated and may be WP:SALTED if it is recreated without proper sourcing. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:38, 22 June 2022 review of draft by JeanCBrown[edit]


JeanCBrown (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am just hoping to get a bit of advice for an article that was rejected for not having "significant" enough coverage. I have added a source that I think reflects a more direct sort of coverage I believe my reviewer was looking for. I just wanted some advice about how many additional articles like this I would need to add in order for it to meet the publication criteria, or if this addition is enough.

This is the source I added: https://www.thestar.com/life/health_wellness/opinion/2020/09/21/gurus-gone-bad-is-it-time-for-reform-in-the-self-help-and-wellness-industry.html

Thanks so much, Jean

See WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH. As for how many such sources you need to establish notability, the answer is 'multiple', which isn't actually defined, but is often thought to be three or more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JeanCBrown: First of all Jean, I'm sorry what you and your family had to go through. However, there are a few problems here. We discourage people with a conflict of interest from editing articles about themselves or their organizations, because it's hard for them to write impartially, and neutrally. See WP:COI. Your conflict comes across in this draft. It's not just the tone, but the info that is included and the sources used to substantiate the info. My rule of thumb is to source everything. If it can't be sourced, don't include it. I haven't read everything and watched the shows, but the majority of the independent coverage of the organization seems to be about James Arthur Ray. An argument could be made that a distilled version of this article could be added to an "Aftermath" section in his article. The sourcing requirement wouldn't be as high. If there are better sources, then the article might get expanded and "forked" as its own article. Whatever you decide to do, since you have a conflict of interest, it's recommended that you not edit yourself, but make edit requests per Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. You make a request on the draft article's talk page. Also, I just removed a lot of inline external links that don't look like they were independent sources, per our WP:EL guideline. The other inline external links should be converted to proper references also, per Wikipedia:Citing sources. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:44, 22 June 2022 review of draft by UniversityRecords[edit]


DECLINED DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REFERENCES. ADDED 26 REFERENCES FROM JSTOR, EUROPEAN RESEARCH INSTITUTES (ATINER IS NOT ONE OF THEM). PLEASE HELP WHAT ELSE TO ADD ??? SO DRAFT IS ACCEPTABLE. UniversityRecords (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an attack page and is barely legible. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of adding anything in particular, it's a matter of writing the article based on what sources say about ATINER. For example, none of your sources show that
  • ATINER is a fake peer review paper mill
  • 17 Predatory Journals per quarter
  • +70 Predatory Conferences per year
  • +210 Books +603 abstract Books
  • +2,738 Paper Series
  • Fake Journals: Fake peer review with ISSN
Your citations are at best random tidbits of information, which you've synthesized yourself into these claims.
What you need is to have a source which discusses ATINER in depth. See OMICS Publishing Group and SCIRP for example of predatory publishers which have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:17:34, 22 June 2022 review of draft by Erumkhan07[edit]


I was able to take care of all the citation related changes the reviewer suggested, after he/she had completed the review. I wanted to check if there is anything more that is needed from me to hopefully push this article live? I look forward to hearing from you all. Erumkhan07 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you want someone to review your draft, before it is reviewed? Or shall we just wait for the actual review to take place? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing - I would not want any reviewer to spend any more time on this, other than what is absolutely needed. Considering all of you take time out of your busy schedules to volunteer here, doubling your efforts is the last thing I'd want. Here is the comment @Pbrks had left on the page, post the review.
"Comment: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and all instances of it should be removed and replaced. The Logical Indian is also not a reliable source."
The article page linked to this page so I thought of checking in here to see if someone can provide quick feedback on the same and if I had done things correctly, as asked. I hope you understand where I'm coming from.
Thanks! Erumkhan07 (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

09:19:13, 23 June 2022 review of draft by Blumate[edit]


Hi, my draft was just declined because "Not clear that they have notability.". The article already exists in the German Wikipedia and I just wanted to translate it. In the German article there were no problems with the notability. Can you help me fix this problem? Should I just add more sources? Thank you in advance. Blumate (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blumate (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blumate (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blumate: each different language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own rules and policies, including for notability — and of the ones I've come across, the English-language one is probably the strictest in that respect. Therefore having an article in one language doesn't in any way guarantee that it can be replicated in others. (I'm saying this without commenting on whether your subject may be notable or not.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer! I didn't know that there are different policies.
I am still pretty sure that the subject is notable. But I have mostly German independent sources. Is there still a way to prove the notability with only German sources? Blumate (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't need to be in English — so yes, German sources are absolutely fine (assuming that they otherwise meet the relevant standards, of course). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your answer.
So in order to prove the notability I now need to add more reliable sources.
Could you maybe tell me where I can find an overview of the standards that the sources need to meet? Or send me a link? So I can check the already existing sources in the article and maybe add new/better ones. Blumate (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to show notability per the general guideline, then WP:GNG tells you what's needed; it in turn links to further definitions of the various components making up that standard.
Alternatively, there is a specific guideline for academics, WP:NPROF, which doesn't require significant coverage in secondary sources. You need to make it clear which of the criteria 1 thru 8 in WP:NACADEMIC is met, and provide reliable evidence to support this, just saying that NPROF is met isn't enough.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your help!! Blumate (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:02:01, 23 June 2022 review of submission by STAUBERMGMT[edit]


Hello there,

My recent article was denied. It wasn't meant to be promotional. Perhaps there are to many links. I can delete them. Can I get some more tips on what to change to approve my article? Thanks

STAUBERMGMT (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Draft deleted, user indeffed) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:55:03, 23 June 2022 review of draft by Miklonzo[edit]


My name is Claude-Michel Nzotungicimpaye. I wrote this article about my late father, with his CV being my main source. I did my best to provide online references (sources) where available. Please note that some of these references are in French as we are from a francophone country. Moreover, a version of this article exists in French with more or less the same references (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joachim_Nzotungicimpaye). That being said, I realized that the reviewer(s) of this article declined its publication. Please what specific section(s)/part(s) of the article need further references?

Miklonzo (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Miklonzo: Each Wikipedia project has its own standards and practises; when it comes to sourcing English Wikipedia tends to be amongst the strictest. Your main issue is demonstrating notability; at a glance I'd argue you need to shoot for WP:NACADEMIC here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:49:03, 23 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Skillgirl[edit]


Wondering if there is an appeals process for the article’s declination based on lack of “notability?” It seems that the first woman ceo of an established (117-year old) national nonprofit supporting 35,000 museums and a published author, frequently quoted by the New York Times and various media outlets is notable. The Atlantic, Washington Post, and Politico found the subject notable enough to cover her appointment to the position and, subsequently, her work with specific articles (not just passing mentions). Additional media outlets such as The Chronicle of Philanthropy have covered her pioneering work. These citations are all included in the submission. Appreciate any advice. Skillgirl (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skillgirl — a few things:
  1. Firstly, I didn't reject your draft, I only declined it, so the 'appeals process' is that you address the reasons for declining, and resubmit. And even if another reviewer is prepared to accept it as it stands, therefore effectively overruling me, they won't do that until you click that blue 'resubmit' button, because currently the draft isn't even in the review pool.
  2. 'The first woman CEO', and claims-to-fame of that ilk, are not inherently notable; you still need to show notability by the WP:GNG route.
  3. Being 'quoted' in MSM is also not a notability criterion; being significantly covered is. So if the NYT quotes her in an article on the museum sector, that almost certainly won't contribute towards her notability. If they write an article on her, that potentially does.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:55:08, 23 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MarinaGraceJohnson[edit]


My article has been turned down as I said I was unpaid, in fact I am paid and I am writing on behalf of a client. This is not my business. Also none of the links go to material produced by the company itself, but to published articles about the company by other publications. Can you tell me how to change my profile from unpaid to paid, as this might improve my submission. Also advise on why the citations are not accepted when they are in fact independent. Many thanks.


MarinaGraceJohnson (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarinaGraceJohnson: the instructions for disclosing your paid status, and your employer or client, can be found at WP:PAID.
Disclosing is mandatory, and won't in and of itself 'improve your submission', but it at least means you're no longer in violation of the UPE rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:41:23, 23 June 2022 review of submission by The all and brand new jimmytoast[edit]


The all and brand new jimmytoast (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Chikn nuggit
Twitter is never going to be an acceptable source for notability and even if it were one source cannot justify an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:05, 23 June 2022 review of submission by Cgdunnckmbc[edit]


Cgdunnckmbc (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cgdunnckmbc: Your only sources are the school itself. This is not acceptable and does not help for notability in the slightest. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:31, 23 June 2022 review of submission by 216.180.78.222[edit]


216.180.78.222 (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia project, not a creative writing website. Try a different website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um hi what is this

June 24[edit]

04:01:44, 24 June 2022 review of submission by 2409:4072:6C82:C424:E932:8D0:F394:1A18[edit]

First it was created as a draft by a promotion company called User:Vision events and promotions and then created to article by their employee. Please move back to draft, because of no notability from reliable sources.2409:4072:6C82:C424:E932:8D0:F394:1A18 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an AfC matter; the article has been in the main space for almost two months now. If you think it fails the relevant notability tests, feel free to take it to AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:54:29, 24 June 2022 review of submission by Cgdunnckmbc[edit]


Cgdunnckmbc (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cgdunnckmbc if you have a question in mind, please ask it, so we don't have to guess. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:47, 24 June 2022 review of submission by Yogi aprilio[edit]


please help us

Yogi aprilio (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yogi aprilio: this draft has been rejected, and with very good reason, too; it will not be considered again. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:02, 24 June 2022 review of draft by Jitsujay[edit]


Hello Wiki..

I am in the process of writing my first article. I though I was doing well. But My first submission can back "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I do understand what that means. But I do not know to what in my article requires more and if it would be easier just to omit anything I can not give a reliable source to. But if someone could assist with what needs to be address, what lines or entries that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time.

Jason Carter

Jitsujay (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jitsujay: "omit anything I can not give a reliable source to" — yes, that's pretty much it. You shouldn't be writing an article based on what you know (or think you know) about a subject, but rather summarising what other, reliable, published sources have said about it. In other words, you find a publication, précis its salient points, and cite it as as the source. Rinse and repeat if needed. And if you find yourself writing something that you can't support with a source, then by definition you're getting into a danger area because you're now describing your own understanding or opinion of the subject, or engaging in original research. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:24, 24 June 2022 review of submission by ActressVenba[edit]


One more reference added in the list, kindly check and approve ActressVenba (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was rejected, it will not be reviewed again, I suggest you find other topics to edit. Theroadislong (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:41:49, 24 June 2022 review of submission by MegaMack02[edit]

I can’t bypass the inadequate references reason, and when O find references, there is a sheer lack of them. How can my draft page pass the revision when there are a sheer lack of references I can find? MegaMack02 (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MegaMack02 I think you're answering your own question here. If you can't find references then it's not a subject that is going to pass the Wikipedia:notability threshold. Nthep (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MegaMack02 I just googled the game and saw a few game site sources/blogs that don't look that great [1][2][3], but the draft must have been deleted already so I can't see what's already there. TechnoTalk (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed link. Nthep (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnoTalk the draft is not deleted, but I’ll be sure to include the references. MegaMack02 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added references into the draft, I am resubmitting the draft MegaMack02 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:55:00, 24 June 2022 review of draft by 24.4.117.226[edit]


I am being told that the amount of sources I have are not "significant," but that is to vague too determine what actually needs to be done. Please advise.

24.4.117.226 (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the issues appear to be multiple. I think it is the quality of the sources along with the depth of coverage about Higdon. For example, what Higdon says or has written is not usable for notability even if published by an otherwise reliable source. In addition, sources like YouTube are rarely helpful as YouTube is generally considered unreliable. I can see it used to support the existence of a documentary by Higdon but that is insufficient. What is needed is what reliable sources said about Higdon and the documentary. It kind of boils down to, yes, he did things but until reliable sources have written in-depth about him doing those things, it really is moot from a notability perspective. Also be wary of sources that exist to advocate for something as they are generally at best weak sources. I hope this provides some clarity. S0091 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:11:04, 24 June 2022 review of submission by Helloheart[edit]

Hello! I have an article that I have created titled Igoeti that is currently graded as Start-Class. Recently, I have been editing this article thoroughly and feel that it may qualify as a C-Class article. Is there any way to have this checked? Thanks! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Helloheart: the article was accepted two months ago, so this is no longer an AfC matter. But FWIW, yes, the Rater tool does predict a C. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25[edit]

02:20:50, 25 June 2022 review of draft by 67.241.60.112[edit]


Can you help me fix my article? Whenever i save a change for adding footnotes it reverses it back. I need some help.

67.241.60.112 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't waste everyone's time with such silliness, not here, not at the Teahouse. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as hoax David notMD (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:36:20, 25 June 2022 review of submission by 206.84.231.9[edit]


206.84.231.9 (talk) 04:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? The draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:48, 25 June 2022 review of submission by Deepesh Bhatnagar[edit]


Deepesh Bhatnagar (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why the edit of page is not accepted
Your draft Draft:Navya Bhatnagar has no sources so was declined. Theroadislong (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:29:28, 25 June 2022 review of submission by KnucklesTheTigger[edit]

Please don't reject my draft, give me a second chance. This time I will not keep re-submitting it over and over again without any changes. But how must I find foreign sources when I live in the US? KnucklesTheTigger (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC):Correctly rejected, the sources are garbage, Facebook, Linkedin.com etc. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:30:39, 25 June 2022 review of submission by AnAnonymous10[edit]

Hello, I made changes to strengthen notability for the article including adding the magazine's focus on underrepresented black artists via NJ.com, further mentions by Cosmopolitan magazine about features, and a New York Post article discussing rising actor Jaeden Martell that was a significant feature for the actor and appeared in Rain Magazine. If this is not sufficient to establish notability, I ask the editors to please point me in the right direction. Thank you AnAnonymous10 (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AnAnonymous10, what are your three best sources in the article in terms of notability? Justiyaya 16:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justiyaya, Thank you for writing!
I would say:
1. New York Public Library establishes that it is a notable title included in its archives: [1]
2. Bal Harbour magazine, which seems reputable (100,000 print circulation) has a two page print spread on the magazine and its founder. [2]
3. An interview I found with renown artist Julie Mehretu on the Marian Goodman website seemed like a notable source: [3]
Additional mentions include quotes that designers, musicians and actors gave to Rain and were published in well regarded outlets such as Elle, MSN, NJ.com, The Cut, and Cosmopolitan magazine.
Thanks again for your help AnAnonymous10 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC) AnAnonymous10 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the NYPL holds the magazine does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^
    "Rain". New York Public Library. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
  2. ^ "Bal Harbour magazine ("Make It Rain")". Bal Harbour Magazine via issuu. 2018-09-10. Retrieved 2022-06-14.
  3. ^ "Julie Mehretu Press" (PDF). Marian Goodman. Retrieved 2022-06-14.

17:58:06, 25 June 2022 review of submission by BevoLJ[edit]


Hello, I recently drafted a page. When I was finished I moved it to the main space. There is a banner at the top and I am unsure if it is telling me I made a mistake or not.

It is from {{AfC submission|t||ts=20220624120625|u=BevoLJ|ns=118|demo=}}.

I do not want to remove this because I am not a reviewer, and it was myself that made the page. However, I do not fully understand what it is trying to tell me, or if I have made some type of mistake. Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated! --BevoLJ (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, please note I am not asking about the {{Copy edit|date=}} banner. I added that myself asking for help from contributors. It is the one above that I am asking about. BevoLJ (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of AFC is that you submit the draft for review, but you bypassed this process and moved it to main space, much of the content is not in an appropriate tone and has been removed. Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:05, 25 June 2022 review of submission by Adam arker[edit]

FAISSAL HAMOUNI successfull young Moroccan entrepreneur, born in Morocco/Casablanca

Adam arker (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam arker: what is your question? The draft has been rejected, and won't be considered anymore. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam arker For future info, you should read WP:YFA to understand how hard it is to write an article, especially if there are no sources demonstrating the subject's notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26[edit]

02:19:39, 26 June 2022 review of draft by Hamza Ali Shah[edit]


Hello, I am working on a draft about Suleman Raza. It recently got rejected for WP:PUFFERY. I have worked on the article for a bit after that and I was wondering if someone could just have a quick read over and kindly tell me if there is anything which sounds like WP:PUFFERY. Thanks in advance!

 Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 02:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]