Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
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 30[edit]

10:27:29, 30 June 2022 review of submission by 2C0F:ED28:122B:8C0:A007:3B13:4BCC:10A3[edit]

2C0F:ED28:122B:8C0:A007:3B13:4BCC:10A3 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:56, 30 June 2022 review of submission by Wertgh 5678[edit]

Wertgh 5678 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wertgh 5678: Can you please specify the draft you're here about? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:42:32, 30 June 2022 review of draft by OMGSiddharth[edit]

OMGSiddharth (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected due to multiple submissions without addressing reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:41:31, 30 June 2022 review of draft by Kaizen the Great[edit]

Hello, I am Kaizen. I am requesting help because I have inputted the wrong description of the author the moment I submitted the draft: Zowey Rens. Is it still possible to change the 2-5 words description from "An Aspiring Author" to "A Filipino Author" instead?

Thank you.

Kaizen the Great (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind. I already found the "short description" button just above the notice. I edited it successfully. Thank you. Kaizen the Great (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:00:38, 30 June 2022 review of submission by CLathrop202020[edit]

CLathrop202020 (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Hi question. If I am not able to edit or publish anything, how am I supposed to improve wiki? Your CLathrop202020[reply]

@CLathrop202020 nothing in your edit history suggests you've been trying to improve Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@David notMD I tried to edit my talk page. It would not let me! Help?!??!?! CLathrop202020 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CLathrop202020: you have edited your user page and user talk page, so it seems you can.
Please ask any further such questions at the Teahouse. This help desk is for drafts going through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:14:30, 30 June 2022 review of draft by MikieSimon[edit]

I don't understand why my submission was declined on 19 May 2022 by Robertsky, with him saying: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.

My page is short but it has 19 footnotes. How many would be necessary? Or is there a part of the article that lacks them, like the table of works? Please explain a little. Thanks!

Michael J. Simon (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MikieSimon: WP:BLP articles have much stricter requirements over the need to be as accurate and verifiable as possible for privacy and libel reasons (among others, I'm sure). This means that nearly every claim should have an in-line citation supporting it, and it isn't the overall number of citations that matter. As an example, the entire first line is unreferenced. A reference is required to show that the subject's birthdate and birthplace have been published somewhere. Similarly, the "Early life and education" section is unreferenced. Some of the references you have provided may be used to verify these claims, but they should be cited multiple times for each claim on BLP articles. Hope that helps. -2pou (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 1[edit]

Request on 03:12:21, 1 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Artedm[edit]

This is a page about a major party candidate for the United State Senate in Colorado who just won and election and received 319,315 votes. The candidate he beat Ron Hanks has a wikipedia page so I don't understand why Joe shouldn't have a page. You can google Joe O'Dea so many sources.

Artedm (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artedm: candidates aren't inherently notable, and winning a primary means you're still only a candidate. If this person one day becomes elected to a state or national position, then they become notable per WP:NPOL; until such time they have to meet WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Hanks is also already a politician in the Colorado House, meeting the WP:NPOL guidelines. If O’Dea wins the final election, he will qualify (as long as all material is suitably referenced for biography articles). -2pou (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing @2pou- three 2022 united states senate candidates who have just won a primary all have wikipedia pages see Katie_Britt Joe_Pinion Jo_Rae_Perkins Artedm (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Artedm: that's as may be, but we abide by the guidelines, not precedent, in what comes to notability. If those candidates' articles don't meet the relevant notability criteria, they can be taken to AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing nothing has changed with precedent since those other 4 pages were created Artedm (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant what matters is the relevant current guidelines, not whether articles have been previously created which contravene those guidelines. Just because some have slipped through the net, doesn't mean it's now a free-for-all. See OTHERSTUFF. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a former colorado senate nominee also has a wikiepdia page Darryl Glenn. Remember this is a senator is a statewide position/ election. Artedm (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artedm see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Theroadislong three 2022 united states senate candidates who have just won a primary all have wikipedia pages see Katie_Britt Joe_Pinion Jo_Rae_Perkins a former Colorado us senate nominee also has a wikipedia page Darryl Glenn. Remember senator is a statewide position/ election. You can have many candidates for school board, city council, mayor, state representative, state senator but only 100 united states senators. Artedm (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artedm There are very rare occasions where a mere candidate might merit an article, such as Christine O'Donnell, but the overwhelming majority of candidates do not, certainly not for state office. I'm sure such articles exist, but that is not reason to allow yours, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a voter guide and does not provide equal time and treatment to all candidates, it depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to help out, please nominate articles about non notable people for deletion. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot not trying to be a voting guide. Amazed to see you say a person who wins a statewide election is not notable. As I have pointed out several in that same situation with pages. Artedm (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't won a statewide election. He won his primary. Primary winners are by definition still candidates since that's what primaries are for- to select candidates. If he wins the general election, he will be notable. To merit an article before that point, he needs to be notable for something else. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:52, 1 July 2022 review of submission by FreddyWitDa$tacks[edit]

Hello, I tried to submit a draft for review and it failed due to lack of reference, I didn't have any reference because the draft I was writing was about a school and the school isn't popular enough to have reference. Please I need help what should I do FreddyWitDa$tacks (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FreddyWitDa$tacks: even if schools were inherently notable (which they aren't), you would still need to cite reliable published sources to verify that this school actually exists, and that the information you state is correct. And in order to show that it is notable, you also need several of those sources to be secondary, and independent of the subject, such as newspapers, books or TV programmes. Without such sources, it isn't possible to publish an article on this school. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:15, 1 July 2022 review of submission by OMGSiddharth[edit]

OMGSiddharth (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Please ask an actual question, don't just post a blank section.
b) As already pointed out yesterday, this draft has been rejected.
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@OMGSiddharth: What is your connexion to G. A. Gowtham? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:09:40, 1 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bluepencil13[edit]

Hi, editors on the help desk! I need help.

I have been trying to submit an article about the News Literacy Project for close to two years: I have adopted the guidance of the various reviewers who have made comments.

I don't know what else I can do and would appreciate specific information that I can incorporate to get this accepted. The misinformation/disinformation plague is one of the most serious issues of our time, and NLP is doing stellar work to combat it.

With thanks, bluepencil (Before I retired, I was an editor at a number of well-known news organizations, including the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg. I am fully aware of the importance of neutrality and aim for that in my writing.) Bluepencil13 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluepencil13 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluepencil13: the aim is merely to describe the subject, not promote it. The initiative in question may be eminent and engaged in many worthwhile pursuits, but the article must not portray it in such terms. As just one example, in the 'NLP board' section (which, incidentally, is entirely unreferenced), directors are said to have "extensive backgrounds in journalism" etc. — there is no need for the "extensive", which is a PEACOCK word; just "backgrounds in journalism" will do. Try to imagine yourself as someone who is against the NLP, or perhaps is a competitor to them, and go through the draft taking out all the puffery and other content that they wouldn't like to see there. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Helpful. Thanks. (Re the board members: I initially created a footnote that went to the board list on NLP’s website, but another Wikipedia editor said such references should be deleted. How do you suggest I provide a reference?) Bluepencil13 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just resubmitted. Fingers crossed. I am trying! Bluepencil13 (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:17, 1 July 2022 review of submission by DualSkream[edit]

I just clicked on the page and I saw this draft got declined. I didn't know about this before, but how could this draft get submitted? DualSkream (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be, rejected means resubmission is not possible. If you think that the reviewer erred, or you have new information they did not consider, please appeal to them directly first. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2[edit]

17:38:55, 2 July 2022 review of draft by GrayEquinox951[edit]

I am trying to crate an article regarding one of the very first Dominicans elected to public office in the country. So far I was only able to get the barest information I could based on safe assumptions. Are there any reliable places where I can get bios of people to use for sources? GrayEquinox951 (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GrayEquinox951 likely not a full biography. To create any article, you must look for multiple sources then summarize what those sources say about the subject. I did a quick Google News search and there is a New York Times article that has some information but more will needed to establish notability for politicians. Please also see Your first article for guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 3[edit]

13:45:45, 3 July 2022 review of submission by M7md Gaming[edit]

It Got Declined. M7md Gaming (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M7md Gaming It was blatant advertising which was rejected, not merely declined. I have now deleted it. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your server. If independent reliable sources write about it, let us know. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:44:35, 3 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Rockandrollin85[edit]

My article I was creating for Mark Younger-Smith is cited as not having enough sources. I do feel I submitted a sufficient amount of information in comparison to several other artists similar to him. For example Mark Smith, the english bassist. He had maybe 3 sources and was just as notable as Mark, if not less notable. Please reconsider your decision. Mark is currently touring the US with his band The Broken Things and opening for The Cult. Thank you.

Rockandrollin85 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockandrollin85: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Each claim in the article that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent article or book authored by an identifiable person and subjected to professional editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts that can corroborate the claim. If no such sources exist for a given claim, it must be removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook,, YouTube and IMDb are not reliable sources please remove/replace. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that comparison. So less is more it seems. I'm still getting mixed signals on the notability, when he is clearly as notable as other artists on this site in direct comparison. Rockandrollin85 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Please see Other Stuff Exists. (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

02:31:56, 4 July 2022 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are at half season for 2022 of F1 and we need the 2023 wiki page. all the information in it are rights

I am going to start reverting off requests for this on sight as disruptive. This has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:39:49, 4 July 2022 review of submission by Liselotte-Ufulu[edit]

I don't quite understand, why this article sumbission has been declined. Could someone help me and tell me, what has to be added or deleted, to make it work?

Thanks in advance.

@Liselotte-Ufulu: it is promotional, with little or no encyclopaedic content. Not to mention that it is almost entirely unreferenced, and the two sources cited (one gov't website, the other an interview) do not contribute towards notability at all. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liselotte-Ufulu (ec) I've fixed your draft link for proper display. You and your company seem to have a common misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is. It is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes 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. We don't want to know what the company says about itself, or to merely have a list of the projects the company has been involved in, but sources that discuss on their own(and not prompted by, or based on materials from, the company) the significance or influence of the company in its field. You have two sources in your draft, and those sources do not seem to have significant coverage of your company- and most of the rest of the draft is unsourced. Unless you have at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company, your company has given you an impossible task. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback.
I added some sources and shortened the list of projects.
Would this be acceptable now?
Or could anyone probably help to edit in order to make it more neutral formulations? (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:30, 4 July 2022 review of submission by Michaelsadams[edit]

Can anyone assist me in working on this page, to get it published and complete

Michaelsadams (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to find multiple independent sources that cover the topic in significant depth, not an interview and not a Wiki. Theroadislong (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:32:23, 4 July 2022 review of draft by Mickduncan1968[edit]

Hello, I am attempting to create a page about the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales. My submissions keep getting rejected due to a lack of references sources. My problem is that I am working directly with the current Chief Magistrate and the source of all the information is held in historic documents in his office, which are not publicly available. How can I get around this? Many thanks

Mickduncan1968 (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mickduncan1968: the short answer is — you cannot get around it. All sources must be published; private correspondence, closed archives, etc. are not acceptable, because they cannot be verified by others. In any case, you shouldn't be basing the article on what the current postholder is telling you, but rather summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about the subject. Without such sources, you cannot by definition have an article on this subject on Wikipedia. Or, put slightly differently, the article can only contain information which can be supported by such sources. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:00:27, 4 July 2022 review of draft by CoraLacoire[edit]


I'm new in the Wikipedia World. I made my first contribution only a few weeks ago by publishing an article on the French Wikipedia about a paleontologist (François Escuillié). The draft that I submit to you today is the translated version of this article. I kept the same plan, the same layout, the same sources. I noticed however that there could be differences in the wikicode between the French versions and the English versions of the Wikipedia articles. So I wanted to know if there was no problem with this draft and if it was eligible for admissibility.

Thank you in advance, have a nice day,

--CoraLacoire (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC) CoraLacoire (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CoraLacoire: you're effectively asking for someone to review this article, and that will happen one day when a reviewer gets around to it. But very briefly, some of the content isn't supported by referencing. Also, it's not immediately obvious what makes this person notable in Wikipedia terms. You might also prune that list of publications, as Wikipedia isn't meant to be a comprehensive catalogue of someone's entire output (not that this would be a reason to decline the draft, but still). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:00, 4 July 2022 review of draft by Demetrissss[edit]

my page got deleted for mpam FC and because it was for advertising which it was clearly not what do i do Demetrissss (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This draft didn't get deleted, it got declined. Not that it's likely to get published, either, as it stands, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Demetrissss The article is about a football club which you say has only one player? That seems a bit odd. (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:51, 4 July 2022 review of submission by Demetrissss[edit]

how can i get mpam fc page accepted and what do i have to add Demetrissss (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:06:27, 4 July 2022 review of submission by Cicorpfze[edit]

As many other hotel groups in the wikipedia pages, we also think our hotel pages needs to be here. We have a history of 40 years to share about Swiss Hospitality.

Cicorpfze (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you have not yet included any Wikipedia:Reliable sources. QiuLiming1 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]

03:20:53, 5 July 2022 review of draft by NeverTry4Me[edit]

Reviewer admitted that the draft passes WP:GEOLAND, even so, declined. As per Wiki policy, notabi9lity of WP:GEOLAND yet not said about any SIGCOV or other sources. Government census data is more logical than any third-party ref as third-party ref often mistakes with name and proper information.

I request a fresh review as I added a couple of "third party" citations.

- Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 03:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of Draft:Summoner Wars[edit]

I've moved Summoner Wars to the mainspace. I am not an AfC reviewer, so it displayed that the draft wasn't reviewed, but IMO the draft satisfies GNG. This article is probably the second part for here, but IMO it meets the first line: move the template because the article was moved into article space by a non-reviewer, but should be in article space (i.e. it is an acceptable page), so I removed the template. Please let me know if I have accidentally made a mistake, if I moved the article improperly, could you please ping me and move it back to the draftspace? Apologies for any potential inconvenience, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:35:17, 5 July 2022 review of draft by ChristianClarina[edit]

Ref: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (June 2022) Submission declined on 13 April 2022 by Greenman (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources I’m not quite sure what the issue is regarding reliable sources. There are two books: 1. b Humphies, Mark Osborne A Weary Road: Shell Shock in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1918. University of Toronto Press, 2018. 2. Price, G. Ward, The Story of the Salonica Army (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1918, 2nd Edition) Three references from the London Times: 1. The Times (London, England), Court Circular, Saturday 3 August 1918, issue 41859 2. The Times (London, England), Tuesday, May 16, 1961; pg. 19; Issue 55082. Category: Obituaries 3. ^ The Times (London, England), 27 June 1929, p. 21 (Issue no. 45240) Three references from other newspapers: 1. ^ Newcastle Courant, 1st. August 1884 (Gale database) 2. ^ Exeter and Plymouth Gazette, 13 July 1906 3. ^ Western Times, 13 July 1906

A reference from The National Archive of the UK; Kew, Surrey, England; War Office and Air Ministry: Service Medal and Award Rolls, First World War. WO329; Ref: 2323, and one for:, and: The British Hospital Formation under the Croix Rouge Francaise at Fort Mahon, Somme, and Chateau de Boismont, La Comté, pas de Calais. n.d.

I have already reported my conflict of interest, as she was my grandmother. I believe my article is written from a neutral point of view. ChristianClarina (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC) ChristianClarina[reply]

ChristianClarina (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianClarina you should read the COI declaration method. - Signed by NeverTry4Me Talk 06:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

04:43:00, 5 July 2022 review of draft by 0xDeadbeef[edit]

Hello, the reviewer for this draft suggested that the sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT however I believe most of them can be counted towards WP:GNG. Can someone show me how they cannot be counted? Thanks. 0xDeadbeef 04:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

0xDeadbeef You should ask the reviewer directly to be certain, but from what I see the sources are little more than promotional pieces for the alliance, they don't have significant coverage which is required. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:54:28, 5 July 2022 review of draft by Nanavandijk[edit]

I've accidentally published this draft on the english wikipedia. Could you delete this draft? Or how can I delete it?

Nanavandijk (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done as an author request speedy delete. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:03, 5 July 2022 review of submission by Rowby[edit]

As you will see the Reviewer of this article correctly indicated that " Numerous unsourced statements throughout the article" I assume this was because in the initial paragraphs "Early Life" "Marriage" and "Acting Career" I did not cite specific sources for those items. After your review I will rewrite those sections and only include items where I have specific sources. (Actually I thought I did that, but clearly I did not.)

In the "Television Credits" and "Television Movies and Feature Films" I cite sources for many -- but not all -- of those items. I would appreciate if you would help me to confirm that my Sources that I DID include are okay in these two sessions.

Rowby (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowby: They MUST be cited within the prose as well. Every claim that could potentially be challenged MUST be sourced. (If Burton is dead, the article does not make any sort of claim of that sort, and so we have to proceed as if he were still alive barring a source that confirms he is dead.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rowby: I should also note that IMDb is not an acceptable source under any circumstance (no editorial oversight), and TCM's website is also a useless source (too sparse). Lastly, we do not consider having appeared in a film or show to be something that requires a cite so long as the subject has been properly credited under their name (i.e. a source is required if they went uncredited or took an Alan Smithee-style credit). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:12:31, 5 July 2022 review of submission by Dofawi[edit]

Dofawi (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a re-review of this article because the basis of the rejection is incorrect. The majority of references provided are not from the perspective of the company, AgAmerica Lending, but are company spotlights from third-party verified sources. The article also includes both pros and cons of the company and all information is directly from sources. All potentially biased verbiage has been removed so I am requesting either approval of this Wikipedia page or more specific and accurate reasoning as to why it has not been approved in order to make necessary revisions. Thank you!

  • I agree with the editor who rejected it - it lacks any independent reliable sources and it's WP:CORPSPAM. In addition, I'd encourage the creator to respond to the paid editing inquiry on their talk page. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:42, 5 July 2022 review of draft by[edit] (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some inline citations, but as Jeske says, there are many assertions (and whole paragraphs) that do not have inline citations. (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I've put up 2 articles that have been both rejected. Both wanted more reliable sources, and I was wondering what the problem of the used sources would be. Would it be not reliable because it's in Korean? Or would it be because there are news articles?

Also, one of the article suggests that it should have a more neutral point of view. Could you be able to provide some examples from the article where it would not be neutral?

Thanks in advance.

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim made about a living or recently-departed person that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent source written by an identifiable author and subjected to competent editorial processes that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed entirely. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:12:17, 5 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Hyerisuh[edit]


I have submitted two articles that have been rejected.

A common reason for rejection is that they do not provide reliable sources. Could you be able to specify on why the sources aren't reliable? Is it because: - The resources are in Korean? - They include news articles? - Not enough resources in the article?

Also, one of the feedback was that it was not written in a neutral point of view. Could you be able to provide an example from the article?

Lastly, I saw articles that I wrote published on wiki-ish pages. I have not submitted them on there, and Wikipedia is the only place I submitted. Would you know why the rejected articles are on those pages? They are wikitia and everybodywiki (Links have been blacklisted.

Thanks in advance.

Hyerisuh (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyerisuh Sources are not required to be in English. There are many websites that copy or mirror Wikipedia, including drafts and deleted pages. This is fine as long as attribution is provided per Wikipedia's license. 331dot (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected means resubmission is not possible. Declined means it is. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyerisuh I'm going to recommend that you not include any unsourced information. If you only include info that is sourced, it will be easier to accept the draft. Also, the long list of books is problematic. If you can find reviews of a few, and use them to source the book, the article will be better. Lastly, as pointed out above, you can use Korean sources, but we'll need to translate them to determine if they provide sufficient coverage. Can you post the link to the three best sources, so we can review? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article, and the one in the previous section -- are they about the same person? (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:04:01, 5 July 2022 review of draft by DrDaveD[edit]

I changed a reference and added a few more. Is it OK now?

There are a few primary sources from the project, but the first 3 are in the software description box so it makes sense for them to be there, and the Techical Charter link is the only place where the new governance structure is really described so I don't think there's another good reference. I believe the other references are all secondary sources, and the Linux Foundation is certainly a reliable source with a very good reputation.

This is the continuation of a previously accepted page Singularity_(software). The community decided not to rename the existing page because of the existence of another project that shares the history, so we need a new page under the new name. The project is very widely used.

DrDaveD (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DrDaveD: I'm going to recommend that you add this as a section to Singularity_(software), while continuing to work on the draft. Also include a section about SingularityCE. The sourcing requirements are not as high to add info to existing articles. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, and it is a possibility, but I'm afraid that it would be misleading because that's no longer any project's name. As it stands now the Singularity page is labeled as being about the project up until the name change, and that is a nice clean, neutral way to define it. I originally changed the Singularity page to point to both Apptainer and SingularityCE new pages, but people on the SingularityCE project said they wanted to wait a year before they created a page, that's why it now just refers to their own web page. DrDaveD (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:47:05, 5 July 2022 review of submission by Devorx[edit]

Devorx (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devorx You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Devorx: You absolutely cannot just leave a laundry list of sources in the footer of biographies; you need to properly cite them. Fortunately for you, I have plenty of time and plenty of music, and so I will assess your sources to see if they're even worth citing to begin with:
So, that's all of your "unique" sources (for want of a better term) assessed, and fully half of them are the exact same press release plastered all over the internet ad nauseam with no editing done except to (usually) remove the disclaimer, with the other half being primarily search engine results that point to yet another one of these worthless press releases as the top result. This sourcing is both unacceptable and raises questions about your connexion to Kapoor. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

12:54:15, 6 July 2022 review of submission by MuradAhmed786[edit]

MuradAhmed786 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MuradAhmed786: You don't ask a question, but the draft has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a host for personal webpages – Wikipedia articles should be about notable topics, and must be based on what independent and reliable sources say about the topic. --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:56, 6 July 2022 review of submission by Jamshedchhapra[edit]

I request a review of my submission since it is not intended for promotion only, the intentions are to provide valuable information about the company, its services, and products. Since I believe that it is really beneficial for those WIKIPEDIA users who like to refer to Wikipedia for collecting maximum information about any company. Either they wish to apply for a job or create a thesis on Information Technology Companies.

The proof that the intentions are not to solely promote the company is that I have not given any backlinks to the products or services pages of both of the websites of Absolute Solutions.

The Content I have compiled is for information purposes, and I will be really grateful if you like to point out the content I should remove or edit to get this wiki page approved.

This is my first submission to WIKIPEDIA and I am looking forward to improving my writing and submissions with your guidance. I have followed an earlier Wikipedia page of an IT Company Nitro Security.

Thanks for your guidance and support Jamshed Chhapra --Jamshedchhapra (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has already been reviewed and rejected, it is blatant advertising and totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia and will soon be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:18:35, 6 July 2022 review of submission by Patatric[edit]

The draft submitted before was incomplete. Current achievements have been included in this draft. Patatric (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Patatric: Unfortunately the article has been rejected, which means it will not be considered again. But for future reference, you'll want to read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. The main issue is lack of independent reliable sources demonstrating notability. I googled her and found this, this and this but they are not great sources. I'm not familiar with the Indian press, but there does not seem to be enough independent third party coverage to meet our notability guidelines. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern and I'm sorry for not citing more reliable sources at first. The 3 references you mentioned are third party news sources which covered the news after it was announced by the government of India.
Please follow the following links fro the official sites of government of India (1 and 2 from and digital India official YouTube site. Number 3 from government of India site and 4 from a nationally renowned news site of India)
Please reconsider based on the information provided. Patatric (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Patatric: Government websites are useless for notability as they are primary sources. If news outlets haven't cared enough to actually discuss her at length outside of standard notices then we can't have an article on her. Your sources are good for proving she exists, but we are not looking for proof of existence. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:13, 6 July 2022 review of submission by MusicWizard7[edit]

AFC submission was declined for inadequate reliable sources. There are 6 references, including from Billboard Charts, two major newspapers, and the musician's official biography. What else do I need to add to make it adequate? MusicWizard7 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His own website and Facebook are not suitable sources though. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MusicWizard7: The Holland Sentinel source is the only one that has biographical information about him. The last item is a press release, which is considered a primary source controlled by the subject, and unfortunately therefore doesn't show notability. I think you should read Wikipedia:Notability (music), the notability requirements for musicians. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:59:08, 6 July 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

My article was declined (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Each claim the draft makes that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, non-routine, independent source written by an identifiable author/journalist and subjected to standard editorial fact-checking processes that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ There are numerous issues with the draft. The main one is that there are no good inline citations to support the information you are drafting. It's too hard for us to tell if the subject is notable. You should take a close look at Help:Referencing for beginners to learn how to properly add inline citations. Also, there is too much detail for a reviewer to review. I recommend that you work from the sources and write the article only with info that is in the sources, rather than writing it and then trying to find sources for the info. Instead of a long list of books, perhaps identify a few that have reviews, and use those reviews to source the books. You can always add more info later. It's a lot to read, but WP:YFA has some good info as well. TechnoTalk (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:36, 6 July 2022 review of draft by Miriner[edit]

Miriner (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify for me the status of my submission? My latest draft was reviewed and a comment was made that the subject seems noteworthy, but there were some footnote issues that the reviewer was going to work on. I also see that a different reviewer has made some changes. Is the article ready for publication?

I also found that my article was published on Everybody Wiki, which surprised me.

Can you please let me know if there is something I should be working on now to change or update the article?

Thanks very much.


YouTube, and Wikipedia are not reliable sources, they need removing/replacing. Theroadislong (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 7[edit]

03:38:49, 7 July 2022 review of submission by Yawer Nazir99[edit]

Yawer Nazir99 (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yawer Nazir99: We don't accept promotional junk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]