Main page | Talk page | Submissions Category — List (sorting) | Showcase | Assessment | Participants Talk — By subject | Reviewing instructions Helper script | Help desk | Backlog drives |
- This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
- For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
- For factual and other kinds of questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
- You may create an article at the Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
- 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.
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 15
01:25:25, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Briankoh97
- Briankoh97 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Wellous ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Would like to know if there are problems regarding the writing style; i.e. if it seems like an advert (written this with as neutral a tone as I could on my first attempt). Making changes to the references btw. Any advice is much appreciated!
Briankoh97 (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Briankoh97 I see you declared a COI. If you work for them, you must make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a terms of use requirement.
- You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. It is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does. It is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company "Significant coverage" goes beyond the mere reporting of company activities, and cannot be based on materials from the company like interviews, announcements, press releases, etc. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @331dot, thank you for the response! As such, I have updated the sources, including reports from The Star and FOCUS Malaysia (respected news organisations in Malaysia). Other that, duly noted regarding the disclosure, which I will make clearer as I am indeed an employee. Other than that, would there be further advice on this piece? Thank you so much for your time once again! Briankoh97 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Briankoh97: The pieces in The Star and FOCUS Malaysia that you added as sources are not independent, for the reasons that 331dot outlined above. Please make sure that you take a moment to read the information linked from the notices on your user talk page. One important and fundamental thing is that sources should not only be reliable and independent, but that they actually verify the content in the article. That is, all information should be supported by a reliable source, and sources that do not verify the information in the article fill no function. (Example: The first paragraph under "Products and Services" has a source at the end. The source leads to a page on the company website that doesn't verify any of the content.) --bonadea contributions talk 10:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @331dot, thank you for the response! As such, I have updated the sources, including reports from The Star and FOCUS Malaysia (respected news organisations in Malaysia). Other that, duly noted regarding the disclosure, which I will make clearer as I am indeed an employee. Other than that, would there be further advice on this piece? Thank you so much for your time once again! Briankoh97 (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
06:10:54, 15 June 2022 review of submission by 2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF
- 2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Gajanan Bhat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2600:1700:7274:1290:D981:364B:7470:E6BF (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
17:08:11, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Serafina1248
- Serafina1248 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:The Melismatics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serafina1248 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I was just wondering why my draft submission 'The Melismatics' wasn't accepted. I've fact checked everything twice and showed no emotion like you wanted, so I don't understand why you're declining it. If it's because the band isn't relevant enough, I've seen an entire wiki page about 'rotten apples'. With all due respect I think a page about a modern rock quartet is more relevant than rotten apples. Please re-think your decision to decline this entry.
- @Serafina1248: did you actually read the comment the reviewer left (underneath that big pink box)? It says this is pretty close, just needs a couple of more reliable sources. And also that some of the sources you've used aren't acceptable, and need to be replaced. So it needs a bit more work, that's all. (As for your comment on 'relevance', this doesn't really come into it; notability does, but I'm passing no judgment on that at this stage.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing: Would you mind telling me what reference are incorrect and which parts need more clarification? And for your information, I did not see the 'big pink box' otherwise I wouldn't be here asking for help. Thank you.
- Sincerely,
- Serafina Serafina1248 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing: Nevermind, I see the box now. I wasn't quite sure what you were talking about before. I will work on all of this and thank you for your time. Sorry for the mix-up. Serafina1248 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
17:27:06, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Jordis DASComm22
- Jordis DASComm22 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Nebraska Department of Administrative Services ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello, I am creating a page for the Nebraska Department of Administrative Services, and my first draft was declined because of lack of non primary sources. Are .gov websites not trusted sources? If anything, at least relating to information about state government entities, it is the most accurate source.
In response to the reviewer's comment of " the actual context of what the agency is is not clearly written in an encyclopedic manner." What would be a good reference to see how to transform the following statement into encyclopedic terms?
" DAS serves the public through assisting other agencies by providing services such as procurement and surplus of property through Materiel Division, building repairs through the 309 Task Force, motor pool leasing and maintenance through the Transportation Services Bureau, HR business partnerships, process improvement through the Center of Operational Excellence."
While I do have DAS in my account name, this isn't an official account. I am an employee of DAS, just making this page in my free time as a retirement gift to my department's director. I am not trying to solicit or advertise through wikipedia. Just creating a page on a department that currently doesn't have one.
Thank you for your assistance.
Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jordis DASComm22: yes, .gov and similar websites usually are reliable, but that's not the issue here. We cannot have an article based solely on what the subject says about themselves, we need to see what others have said about them.
- That wasn't really the reason for declining, though; this was declined because it reads like a corporate brochure or some such, not an encyclopaedia article. Please rewrite it in concise, factual language, avoiding jargon and buzzwords, so that it is as accessible as possible to the greatest number of readers. And support it also with sources other than just the close and primary ones associated with the State gov't. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Jordis DASComm22 I revised it a bit to make it more encyclopedic, but it still needs more sources. What about announcements of its activities that might have been picked up in local media? TechnoTalk (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- And Jordis DASComm22 you'll have more success if you refer to the proposed encyclopedia article as an article rather than a page. This is different than social media. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnoTalk and @DoubleGrazing thank you! I feel like I have run into a lot of problems in my time in wikipedia and most people are just looking to decline articles rather than help just edit it to fit the criteria or point me in the right direction. I will search for news sources outside of the .gov range for citations, I included one on the article from Politico. Would that be an acceptable source?
- Do either of you have an example of a state government department article I could see as a reference? Is this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_General_Services) a good reference? Jordis DASComm22 (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Jordis DASComm22, to put this in perspective, wikipedia would find [1] far more relevant and due than routine press releases published. Now you probably don't want that audit covered, which is why per WP:AUTO, it's not always a good idea to have a Wikipedia page since you have no control of the content.Slywriter (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Jordis DASComm22: Like everywhere, there are factions and cliques, but we do our best to try to move the encyclopedia forward with a minimum of drama. There is a somewhat negative reaction when connected people edit about their businesses, agencies or particularly themselves, because the tone and content is not normally good, and it makes more cleanup work for others. That being said, the California article you pointed out is also poorly sourced, but since it was written in July 2007 before there was much attention on notability standards, it got a pass, and it sits there today unmolested. Someone might flag it for needing more sources, or even nominate it for deletion, or better yet, try to improve it with third party sources. We are all volunteers here and work in areas that interest us. Politico is generally reliable. You can see the reliable sources noticeboard here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You could also read WP:RS to see what you should be looking for. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Jordis DASComm22: in a way, that's what we do at AfC, we "just look to decline articles"; meaning, we look for the reason why a draft cannot be accepted. If we find one, then we decline, because by definition we must. Whereas if we don't find one, then we accept. (Or maybe that's just me.) In any case, it's nothing personal. We're all here to build an encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Request on 18:43:08, 15 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Alb0077
I need help on whata wrong in this arcticle?
Alb0077 (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Alb0077: Please read the comments you've been given. To summarize, the sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability. Please read WP:GNG and WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. If you're the subject, please also read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
19:28:30, 15 June 2022 review of submission by Christian12Fischer
- Christian12Fischer (talk · contribs) ()
- User:Christian12Fischer/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Christian12Fischer (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Question: I provided almost 40 information sources under References. For almost each type of food there are two information sources. How many do I have to reference? Or I am not referencing it correct? Can you please explain?
- Christian12Fischer Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you provide me an examle which is bad and an example how it can be rewritten to be accepted? One sentence will be enought. Christian12Fischer (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example I have "Similarities between the people from North Macedonia and Bulgaria". Can I write Food in North Macedonia and Bulgaria?
- Will you accept this? Christian12Fischer (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Given the subject matter I've dropped an WP:ARBEE alert on their talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Christian12Fischer I am not a experienced Wikipedia user neither, but I know Wikipedia itself and blogs are almost always unreliable sources. Furthermore, no sources listed directly mentioned the comparison between North Macedonia and Bulgaria. You explained the similarity on food, but your sources did not mention both countries, they are just cooking guides. Also, it is not sufficiently notable enough, I personally think one sentence can summarize this whole article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Scholar sources about every day food of two small countries.... yes, sure. What I did is providing at least 2-3 independant sources from where one can obviously confirm that what I wrote is correct. I have seen many articles on wikipedia without scholar sources or referenced scholar documents. 2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- 2 sources per food I mean... 2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Christian12Fischer @2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 Correct does not mean it should included in wikipedia. It should be Wikipedia:Notable, which the sources should say "people from North Macedonia and Bulgaria is similar because ..." QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend you to go to Wikiversity instead, where original research is allowed. "I have seen many articles on wikipedia without scholar sources or referenced scholar documents", you can give us an example and I am sure other experienced Wikipedia users could show you why the article is not deleted QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I missed the wikiversity proposal. Will try there. Thank you. 2A02:908:1983:E620:158F:8692:CACC:7919 (talk) 11:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can you point me where the Scholar sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_cuisine are? Christ12fischer (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_cuisine Christ12fischer (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Italian Riviera - Wikipedia Christ12fischer (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, this article does not have many sources, but it is obviously famous enough (it have 15+ articles in different languages of Wikipedia). I guess it's just nobody is willing to add sources to the article. QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I recommend you to go to Wikiversity instead, where original research is allowed. "I have seen many articles on wikipedia without scholar sources or referenced scholar documents", you can give us an example and I am sure other experienced Wikipedia users could show you why the article is not deleted QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Christian12Fischer @2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 Correct does not mean it should included in wikipedia. It should be Wikipedia:Notable, which the sources should say "people from North Macedonia and Bulgaria is similar because ..." QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- 2 sources per food I mean... 2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- You making the connections is original research. If scholars discuss the similarities, then its possible an article could be written showing what scholars say about the similarities. Without such scholarly publications, this will not be published.19:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Scholar sources about every day food of two small countries.... yes, sure. What I did is providing at least 2-3 independant sources from where one can obviously confirm that what I wrote is correct. I have seen many articles on wikipedia without scholar sources or referenced scholar documents. 2A02:908:1983:E620:1032:E77F:6264:FC08 (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
June 16
01:58:00, 16 June 2022 review of submission by ChristianClarina
- ChristianClarina (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:The Hon. Erin Massey, 6th. Lady Clarina ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I have resubmitted the article with several new references and multiple photos of mine from Wikimedia commons BUT when I submitted, the immediate response that there were no references. Please explain why it's not findin my references, as I have inserted the tag? Thank you ChristianClarina (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- ChristianClarina, putting aside the formatting of references (this guide may help), Your first reference is to a list where the subject is not mentioned. As for the Commons material, private materials that have not been published in reliable sources are not usable in Wikipedia articles. Nor are Wikipedia articles useable in other articles.
- No idea if your other sources discuss the subject but if they do, please reply here with WP:THREE published reliable sources that discuss the subject so notability can be evaluated.Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have formatted the references, and split the content into sections. I have not added any new content. It should be easier for review now. Jay (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Slywriter, thanks for your help. Here are three sources which I hope meet the requirements. Two are published books, the third is a London Times obituary:
- Three best sources:
- Humphries, Mark Osborne A Weary Road: Shell Shock in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1918. University of Toronto Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442661400-007
- Price, G. Ward, The Story of the Salonica Army (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1918, 2nd Edition).
- The Times (London, England), Tuesday, May 16, 1961; pg. 19; Issue 55082. Category: Obituaries.
- From Christian Clarina ChristianClarina (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
03:15:07, 16 June 2022 review of submission by ActressVenba
- ActressVenba (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Venba ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Could you please elaborate why this article has been declined. I mentioned all details correctly, Please kindly advise
ActressVenba (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ActressVenba: have you actually read the reasons given for the decline and rejection? There is more information in those reasons than in the draft itself, and I don't see the point of repeating it all here. If you have read them, and still have a question, please put it specifically.
- In a similar vein, although on a different point, have you also read the notice on your user talk page which explains why autobiographies really aren't a very good idea? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
06:22:37, 16 June 2022 review of submission by Boots small
- Boots small (talk · contribs) ()
- No draft specified!
Boots small (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Boots small — what is your question? It would appear you haven't made any edits, drafting or otherwise. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Request on 11:04:28, 16 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Ego Progatem
- Ego Progatem (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Burgess Model K ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi, I'm not sure why my article was declined this time around. Twice now it's been declined for a lack or reliable sources. Most of my information comes from a museum with an online exhibit of the plane that I've linked. After the first time it was declined, I found supporting evidence from two other places and as far as I'm aware, all three sources are reliable. I can't think of any way to improve the sources for the article at this time.
Ego Progatem (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ego Progatem You have sources which document the existence of the aircraft and its fate, but none that have significant coverage of the aircraft. One of your sources is more about the pilot and not the aircraft itself. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do you by "Significant coverage of the aircraft"? I have the history behind its creation, it's role in service, it's vital statistics, and it's fate. I'm not really sure what I could add about it. What more is there? Ego Progatem (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ego Progatem Well, as I suggested above, you only really have two sources because one of the three offered is more about the pilot than the aircraft. One or two more sources that discuss the importance or significance of the aircraft is needed. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do you by "Significant coverage of the aircraft"? I have the history behind its creation, it's role in service, it's vital statistics, and it's fate. I'm not really sure what I could add about it. What more is there? Ego Progatem (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
12:59:36, 16 June 2022 review of submission by Editorialfeco
- Editorialfeco (talk · contribs) ()
- No draft specified!
Good Day, My Name is charles Kay, an editorial associate for Feco Blog, As regards to this profile fpr Akin Fadeyi & Foundation which is been rejected, may I asked for help on who can assist me with the complete draft to ensure avoid rejection?
Editorialfeco (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Editorialfeco,
- Your draft is insufficiently referenced, with many statements unsupported by citations. You must ensure that every material statement, as well as private personal details such as DOB, are clearly backed up by reliable sources. See WP:REFB and WP:BLP for guidance.
- You also need to show that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. Currently you cite two sources which don't even mention the person, and if they did, they still wouldn't count towards notability as they are primary. Per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
- Dealing with these two issues should put your draft in a much better position. (If you need help on editing more generally, you can try the Teahouse, or for help writing the content, perhaps ask eg. at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria?)
- HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Editorialfeco, need reliable independent sources. The foundation itself is not a reliable source to establish notability. Also, if you are being WP:PAID or otherwise connected to the subject (WP:COI), you must disclose on your userpage.
Request on 16:53:29, 16 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by AnAnonymous10
- AnAnonymous10 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Rain Magazine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello I started a draft article but I waited a while to improve it. I did so here:
Is it deleted? No one has looked at it or approved it from the editors. Please let me know. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rain_Magazine
AnAnonymous10 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AnAnonymous10 you haven't submitted it for review yet, that's why nobody has reviewed it (that, and the fact that it seems to have been created all of two days ago). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just learnt how to add the submit code to the top of the draft article haha. I'm so dumb. Thank you! AnAnonymous10 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
17:00:07, 16 June 2022 review of submission by Abishekr1996
- Abishekr1996 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Annamalai Kuppusamy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Regarding the issue of Sourcing:
1. The draft was very narritive-driven and seemed highly promotional. Promotional content has been cut out. Content restricted to news sources.
2. Some of its contents were not cited from reliable news sources. Citations added where neccessary. A couple of questionable news citations haven been cut.
Regarding the issue of Notability:
3. The person concerned has become a person of importance in a province with population ~76 million in the worlds largest democratic state. Has a twitter following of 390,000. (https://twitter.com/annamalai_k)
4. A google search leads to wikipedia page of another political figure with a similar name from another political party. (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._Annamalai )
Abishekr1996 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
18:32:27, 16 June 2022 review of submission by Barrios TIC
- Barrios TIC (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Pushkar Raj Thakur ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Barrios TIC (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Twitter, Goodreads and YouTube are not reliable sources, the draft was rejected it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
18:58:05, 16 June 2022 review of submission by PaulTilstone
- PaulTilstone (talk · contribs) ()
- No draft specified!
Hi - my initial entry was refused due to lack of independent references, so I added a further 5 independent references and it was rejected within minutes of my submission. I dont understand how it could have been rejected so quickly and it seems like the references have not been checked properly
PaulTilstone (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Purposeful Travel
- @PaulTilstone: This is straight-up spam at worst and original research at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you have an article in there from World travel Market, the biggest travel market globally, and Business Travel News, the most prominent business travel publication globally. To say it is "straight up Spam" is an insult. PaulTilstone (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking at the text, not the sources. It being sourced and it being spam are not mutually exclusive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you have an article in there from World travel Market, the biggest travel market globally, and Business Travel News, the most prominent business travel publication globally. To say it is "straight up Spam" is an insult. PaulTilstone (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
June 17
03:48:06, 17 June 2022 review of draft by HelpingWorld
- HelpingWorld (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:National Military Appreciation Month ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What Wikiproject tags would fit Draft:National Military Appreciation Month I am confused on this subject. All help is appreciated!`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 03:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HelpingWorld: I wouldn't worry about that yet, the projects and ratings can be added at or after publication. In any case, that's not an AfC matter, so you should probably ask at the TEAHOUSE, rather. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ DoubleGrazing do you think my draft has a large chance to be accepted?`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 08:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is what the review will consider, whenever it takes place (and it won't, until you click on that blue button!), so let's not jump the gun. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Alright thanks for the help.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 09:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is what the review will consider, whenever it takes place (and it won't, until you click on that blue button!), so let's not jump the gun. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ DoubleGrazing do you think my draft has a large chance to be accepted?`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 08:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
07:25:57, 17 June 2022 review of submission by ZRJOY10
I copy the content from my own site.I want to add that site in wikipedia.Why the copyright issue their. That is my site and I am the employee of that site. ZRJOY10 (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- ZRJOY10 It's not enough to just tell us that you own it, the content must be properly donated, see WP:DCP. The licence of the content on your website must also be compatible with Wikipedia's. (allowing for reuse for any purpose, including commercial) In any event, we don't want a direct copy of other websites, as a Wikipedia article primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
08:44:58, 17 June 2022 review of draft by 122.173.27.211
- 122.173.27.211 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am bot sure what is this duplicate publication
122.173.27.211 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- If I've deciphered your comment correctly, you're saying this draft does not duplicate another submission. This is correct, given that the other draft was deleted yesterday. It was also correct at the time of declining (back in April) to say that it did. Given all that, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
10:16:03, 17 June 2022 review of submission by 14.201.79.63
- 14.201.79.63 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Steven He ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am requesting a re-review as I have expanded this article
14.201.79.63 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- This draft was rejected, and will not be considered again.
- Please do not remove the earlier AfC tags, they need to stay there (it does say not to remove them). I have restored the rejection tag.
- Also, incorrect edit comments don't help anyone. You had removed the tag with the comment "added a bit of text", which is misleading. Please do leave comments, but please ensure they accurately reflect what you've done. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
15:51:39, 17 June 2022 review of submission by CatIvan
- CatIvan (talk · contribs) ()
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Article: Draft:Clément_Bérini
I'd like your advice for the submission of the Draft:Clément_Bérini article: is the writing tone correct? Do any paragraphs need to more information and sources? Or less?
I also wonder how to show the notability criteria. In the article there are supporting sources for most of the notability items and subitems, and I can bring in more reliable sources for most of the items, regarding for example: #1 widely cited by peers, #3 principal role in creating well-known work, #4b main/sole exhibitor for significant exhibitions, #4c significant critical attention, and #4d represented within the permanent collections of notable gallery and museum.
Regarding the other criteria, while Bérini is recognised by his peers for his artistic development, he is commended by academics as notable for introducing Modern sensibilities in his cultural and artistic communities, which are traditionally lacking artistic production and collection. I also have more academic sources, besides those in the article, about the impact and importance of Bérini in the social and arts communities, but the detailed discussion of his social and historic importance seems out of place in this article, and more relevant to other articles about the cultural history of Franco-canadian communities and arts.
Thank you for your help, cat (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @CatIvan: in essence, you're asking us to review the draft, which isn't really what this help desk is here to do. If you feel that you've addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, please click on the 'resubmit' button and in due course a reviewer will come along.
- But FWIW, my opinion, based on a cursory glance, is that the style is overly verbose, and the tone somewhat 'chatty'; it comes across as a personal essay, rather than an encyclopaedia entry. If it were my draft, I'd go for a more concise, factual and formal approach still.
- I also couldn't help noticing that some of the content isn't properly referenced. There are many paragraphs where the only citation is quite early on, with the remainder of the text unsupported. You need to ensure that every material statement is clearly backed up by a reliable source.
- Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
19:27:31, 17 June 2022 review of draft by 223.182.97.2
- 223.182.97.2 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Dayana Erappa ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I dont understand what is required. I am so sorry.
223.182.97.2 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Have you actually read the reasons for declining (those grey boxes inside the large pink ones)? They clearly explain in quite a lot of detail what needs to be improved. I don't wish to merely repeat here what has been said already, but if you have a specific question you can put that to us. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
June 18
02:37:05, 18 June 2022 review of draft by 96.82.201.213
- 96.82.201.213 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Terror on the Prairie ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm confused why this movie isn't be allowed to have a page
I can look at bruce wills's page and I see like 15 movies that are direct to video that all have their own pages. But this movie with major actos is not being allowed? Seems like its just 100% a bias
96.82.201.213 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying this film "isn't be allowed to have a page"; the draft has only been declined, not rejected. The subject's notability has not been demonstrated, as the sources do not provide significant enough coverage to meet the notability criteria.
- Accusing reviewers of bias on the basis of a single (and entirely justified) decline is neither appropriate nor helpful. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
06:47:05, 18 June 2022 review of submission by ActressVenba
- ActressVenba (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Venba ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
few reference links are removed, and kindly advise what exactly you need to approve this article
ActressVenba (talk) 06:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @ActressVenba: this draft has been rejected for lack of notability, and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Request on 10:02:58, 18 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Asdrubalissimo
- Asdrubalissimo (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Mitchell Green ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am requesting assistance for a page I am trying to create Draft:Mitchell Green. I work in academia, and Mitch Green is a well-established figure in his field. Yet the entry keeps being rejected, for reason that I can only suppose are purely formal (since prominence in the field is beyond doubt)
I checked the WP:NACADEMIC route. Again, being a professional academic working in the same field, I have no doubt that Green meets the first criterion (impact for the discipline). In fact, much less prominents academic from the same field (and same Department), like Dorit Bar-On, have a dedicated wikipedia page. As an explanation for rejection, I got this pre-made message: "[references] do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". And yet I have cited web of science (which tracks impact and citations), book reviews (compiled by independent sources), a special issue of a prominent international journal dedicated to the work of Green, and so forth. It seems undeniable that the references meet all the requirements stated in the rejection. On top of this, I have inserted links to academic articles and books from the most prominent publishers in the field (Oxford University Press, etc.). I am really puzzled by the decision to reject the article – there are so many pages for pseudo-experts and vanity entries for minor academic on Wikipedia, so it's really frustrating to not be able to create a page for a recognised expert in the field! I hope you can help.
Asdrubalissimo (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Asdrubalissimo Wikipedia does not have "pages", it has articles. Please read other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits and the existence of other articles is immaterial. It could be that those other articles are also inappropriate and have simply not been addressed yet by a volunteer editor.
- It could be that this person is notable, but the sources do not demonstrate that. You have done well to cite what the person has done, but Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about them. What are your three best sources here? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping, @331dot. I understand the point about OSE. As for my three "best" independent reliable sources, as I mentioned, I have:
- - book reviews
- - a special issue that celebrates the work of the author
- - literally thousands of academic articles that discuss Green's work (referenced indirectly, through Web of Science) – some only in passing, but over a hundred of these articles extensively engage with his work Asdrubalissimo (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the number of citations to Green's work, they are likely notable. They've got three articles that are cited by over 200 other scholars and an h-index (which I know is an imperfect measure) of 23. Pinging DGG who is more expert than I. valereee (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see DGG may be taking a little break, so @Asdrubalissimo, I've pinged you to the draft talk and will be happy to discuss with you there. valereee (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have not disappeared completely. Certainly notable on the basis of the books. The article needs trimming--it should list ofnly the most cited peer reviewed articles, not misc. publications. Some of the above comments are in error: the standard is WP:PROF, which is independent of the GNG.The usual way of meeting it is the criterion of professional influence sas shown by citations. If one wants to think (incorrectly) of it in terms of independent secondary sources, the sources are the citing articles. That was one key part of the argument by which we established the concept of WP:PROF15 years ago, to satisfy those who thought the GNG was universal policy rather than just one of several guidelines. (and I note that the occasional attempts to make it policy has failed without exception) Since then there have been occasional challenges to it of the nature shown here, all of which have failed. I shall accept the article tommor wafter I've done the trim.
- Additionally, I think it may be necessary to reexamine articles declined by those reviewers who thinksGNG applies ot WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
19:56:56, 18 June 2022 review of submission by WikiMrBadger
- WikiMrBadger (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
First, a couple of caveats: I posted this question in Teahouse, not sure if that was the right place so I'm re posting it here. If that is in error, apologies.
Also not sure if the page name is supposed to include the "Draft:" part. But here's the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Revelatory_Theory_of_Atonement
I recently submitted an article on a very old but recently revived religious viewpoint: Draft:Revelatory Theory of Atonement. It was promptly rejected because of NPOV problems. I can see that it was written with the point of view of someone wanting to support the view. However, I'm unclear as to how much I need to do to make the tone more neutral. I've done a superficial (I think) revision in which I replaced what were statements of fact with references to this being the theory's point of view on it. I'm not sure if that is sufficient or if it needs a rewrite almost as if it was an adversarial viewpoint, i.e. pointing out everywhere that alternate viewpoints disagree and why. That would seem to me to be taking the NPOV to the opposite ditch. But I'm uncertain where the middle of the road is. I've thought of just resubmitting it but that seems like it might be wasting some reviewer's time just to tell me "No, that's not it." I've also looked at other existing articles that have been flagged as having NPOV problems and I'm not sure I see it in them. I've read the available articles on what NPOV means and am still not sure if the article is still going to have a problem. Advice on how to better understand NPOV and what needs to be done to this article would be much appreciated. WikiMrBadger (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know about neutral tone, but the draft has zero reliable, independent sources, is largely unintelligible original research and is extremely unlikely to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
23:53:05, 18 June 2022 review of submission by Paris.Parello
- Paris.Parello (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:FogeCoin BSC Token ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
can you tell me what to change to be accepted?? Paris.Parello (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nothing, what you wrote was blatant advertising. If you are associated with this topic, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
June 19
13:36:30, 19 June 2022 review of submission by Obyno2020
Obyno2020 (talk) 13:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Obyno2020: you don't ask a question about the rejected draft. I see that you asked about it back when it was rejected, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2022 March 7#19:00:45, 7 March 2022 review of submission by Obyno2020. Do you have a follow-up question? --bonadea contributions talk 15:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
21:59:29, 19 June 2022 review of draft by Melissaecuador
- Melissaecuador (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Chicago Steak Company ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am not sure how else I can edit my article to make it sound more neutral.
Melissaecuador (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Melissaecuador I think that you have a common misunderstanding about what it is we are looking for in articles- a Wikipedia article is not for merely telling of the existence of the topic and what it does. An 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 the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. The key here is "significant coverage"- it must be coverage which goes beyond merely telling us the business exists and what it does, and goes in depth about it, such as describing how exactly the business is significant or influential. Wikipedia is not interested in all the media outlets that mention the company, but in what they say about it. Do they say it has a large market share, or a new business model, or has influenced other businesses, or society as a whole, or involved in influential litigation?(just some examples, it's not an exclusive list) You have some reviews of the company but they are basically advertisements disguised as news stories/magazine articles. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
June 20
03:50:27, 20 June 2022 review of submission by SEOGURUvai
- SEOGURUvai (talk · contribs) ()
SEOGURUvai (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- User blocked and draft deleted. 0xDeadbeef 04:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
13:31:39, 20 June 2022 review of submission by Golusingh1410
- Golusingh1410 (talk · contribs) ()
- No draft specified!
How can i list our Business on wikipedia - Like Nyka, Sunpharma that is alreay listed
Golusingh1410 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
18:03:35, 20 June 2022 review of submission by Ruotsi 09
{{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)
- 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)
- 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)
Request on 19:23:48, 20 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Gfxseries
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)
- 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)
June 21
04:09:23, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Golusingh1410
- Golusingh1410 (talk · contribs) ()
- No draft specified!
how can i list our business on wikipedia
Golusingh1410 (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
05:07:43, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Bharatguntu
- Bharatguntu (talk · contribs) ()
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)
- 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)
05:53:09, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Nabenmes
- Nabenmes (talk · contribs) ()
- User:Nabenmes/sandbox/Breakthroughs in Longevity Technologies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You say "our goal here" please note that user accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
08:09:30, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Cyan2021
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)
- @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)
09:33:04, 21 June 2022 review of submission by 707paneone
- 707paneone (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:PANE1 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Requesting examples of info to add/void to pass approval 707paneone (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
Request on 10:08:42, 21 June 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Erumkhan07
- Erumkhan07 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Raghib Khan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
11:05:52, 21 June 2022 review of draft by 81.109.141.186
- 81.109.141.186 (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:The Next Century Foundation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
81.109.141.186 (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
15:34:33, 21 June 2022 review of draft by BethanyGraceAB
- BethanyGraceAB (talk · contribs) ()
- Draft:Cytiva ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)
- @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)
- @DoubleGrazing thank you for explaining, I appreciate it! BethanyGraceAB (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
15:40:23, 21 June 2022 review of submission by Avi4zara
Avi4zara (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
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
Avi4zara (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
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)