Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help
desk
Backlog
drives

Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

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

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


February 9

00:36:25, 9 February 2021 review of draft by 74.73.230.232


So if I'm reading correctly you need to be "autoconfirmed" to move pages or else the button won't show up. So can someone who is autoconfirmed move Draft:Syncuari to Draft:Syncuaria, with the "a" at the end, just a dumb typo on my part. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And move Draft talk:Syncuari to Draft talk:Syncuaria 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks 74.73.230.232 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

01:21:42, 9 February 2021 review of draft by 74.73.230.232

Silly question, but I was going back through the referencing tutorial. Anyway I think I have the basic idea down now for the citation templates, but I'm pretty sure your supposed to delete the tutorial page, in this case Draft:Referencing sandbox/22014662 once your done with it, and I haven't the faintest idea how to do that, so if someone else could do it for me or explain how to do it myself in really basic terms that would be appreciated, but I have some IRL things to do for the next hour or two, and it might also be one of those things you need to be "autoconfirmed" for anyway. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@74.73.230.232: You can just leave it there (in which case someone will clean it up in 6 months) or you can simply put {{db-g7}} (as it appears when viewing the page) on it, after which an admin will clean it up. One last thing, because IP's are possibly changing hands from time to time, you need to be registered to be able to get WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well if it will eventually take care of itself I'll just leave it be then. I wasn't going to register because I edit once in a blue moon, but if some things are registered only then maybe I'll think it over. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually on second thought I will add the template you suggested to learn how it works. 74.73.230.232 (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

03:07:08, 9 February 2021 review of draft by Tj26447


Tj26447 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Tj26447 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

04:45:25, 9 February 2021 review of submission by Esmaeili.nooshin


Esmaeili.nooshin (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Architecture, Culture, and Spirituality Forum. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

07:10:31, 9 February 2021 review of submission by Ethanflashboi1122


Ethanflashboi1122 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ethanflashboi1122: I am afraid that being known for good jokes is nowhere near for getting an article here. Wikipedia is not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

18:22:13, 9 February 2021 review of draft by Avanyu


Avanyu (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the reviewer's comment. S/he seems to think my edit is for a new article. It isn't. It's only a short addition to the Amendments section of the page on the US National Labor Relations Act. Currently, the section has two short paragraphs describing past attempts to amend the Act. My addition describes a current national campaign to amend it.

@Avanyu: I am afraid that AfC is only for proposing new articles. Additions to existing articles can either be done directly by you (if you don't have a WP:COI - which is unlikely) or are handled via the article talkpage using the edit request meachanism. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Avanyu: If you're not comfortable adding the info yourself, or have a conflict of interest as Victor mentioned above, you can go to the article's talk page and add a link to your draft, and ask for help adding it to the article. Or perhaps it might make more sense at Misclassification of employees as independent contractors? In any case, I'd remove the Facebook sources and try to find independent third party media coverage of the initiative. Good luck. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

20:47:34, 9 February 2021 review of draft by CyncoLA


Hi I am requesting help on how to change this article. One edit said that notability was proven, just needed to change the citations. The next said that the person wasn't notable. Please advise on how to move forward. CyncoLA (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi CyncoLA. Don't draw too much encouragement from reviewer ThadeusOfNazereth's comment that "Mr. Jacoby may fulfill the notability guidelines". I wouldn't read that as saying notability has been proven. Jacoby sounds like a worthy individual, someone who has worked hard on worthwhile things, but that's not the same as having gained significant attention by the world at large (which is what makes one a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article). If you have a close connection to the subject, it may appear to you that they're notable, but not appear that way to uninvolved editors. I've left a more detailed comment on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Worldbruce, This is correct, and I should've phrased it differently to make that clear. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 02:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 22:16:49, 9 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Verdant333


help in realising this article.Innes has been mentioned in Edwin Morgans poetry collection Cathures and his work is in situ. Article can be edited down. Innes is notable as it is known that his woodcarving of Edwin Morgan helped to create Scots Maker position and Morgan as first Makar.


Verdant333 (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

February 10

02:39:16, 10 February 2021 review of submission by 88.230.169.61

Why is there not a wiki page for Barry Jennings?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI

Survivor of 9/11 attacks, and he is disappared soon after 9/11. There are pages of other survivors on wiki. Why not him?

88.230.169.61 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

You have only one source in the draft; Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


Isn't that how wikipedia is supposed to work? I am not required to put in all the information nor I know much how to. I just take the first step, another person comes along and puts in the next source. Because guy clearly is a survivor, has interviews on the web and is now disappeared along with his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.177.185 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is true that you do not have to put in every possible piece of sourced information for a draft to be accepted. However, when submitting a draft using AFC, you must at a minimum show that the draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion by providing multiple independent reliable sources showing that the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person has been met. Most reviewers look for a minimum of three sources.
I will add that interviews do not establish notability; Wikipedia is interested in what others say about a subject, not what one says about itself. Please read Your first article.
Though I advise against it, you are free to create an account, become autoconfirmed, and directly create an article. However, that runs the risk of being deleted through a discussion or even speedy deletion. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

03:03:37, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Syent713

How can I fix this to where it gets approved? Syent713 (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Syent713 You can't. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and as such no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

07:41:05, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Emma Citizen

Please I'm writing about Emma Citizen, Ghana's youngest blogger. There are many people searching for this on Google so I think if you publish this article it might help them get lots of information. Thank You Emma Citizen (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Emma Citizen If you are not Emma Citizen, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for this person. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

09:56:11, 10 February 2021 review of draft by Enricaferrara


I would like to know where I can find the correct template for an entry about myself, Enrica Maria Ferrara. I am an author, translator and academic (Trinity College Dublin, formerly in UCD), author of 3 single authored books, 2 edited books, dozens of articles in journals and newspapers, etc. I collaborate with the Italian Cultural Institute in Dublin, organising events with writers and academics. I collaborate with the Irish radio. I understand that you don't encourage writing entries about self but I commit to write a neutral, unbiased one. There are far too many entries about myself on the web and not all of them are accurate. Thank you. Enrica

Enricaferrara (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't! Wikipedia only summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person, we have no interest in anything else. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Enricaferrara I advise you to not attempt this. As people naturally write favorably about themselves, this is not a good idea. While technically possible, in my many years here I have never seen someone succeed in writing about themselves. You in essence need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. Also note that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. You cannot lock it to the text that you might prefer, or prevent others from editing it. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

11:01:56, 10 February 2021 review of submission by 110.227.222.38

why i am notable to create a Wikipedia page of notable person. 110.227.222.38 (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


12:08:38, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Jenifree


Jenifree (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Jenifree You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you wish to ask a question, please edit this section to add your question. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

15:24:19, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Adamcrowther

The article was initially rejected due to my username, i have now changed my username and would like to get this article published. Are there any further steps i need to take to improve the quality of this publication? Many thanks!

Adamcrowther (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Adamcrowther It wasn't rejected due to your username, it was rejected because the subject of the draft does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it is notable. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company says about itself. Your draft is sourced only to your company website; multiple independent sources are what is needed. Those sources cannot be the company website, staff interviews, announcements of routine business, or other primary sources.
If you are a company employee or otherwise represent the company, you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a paid editing declaration. You should also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

15:54:37, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Cullen chronosphere


Hello -- I am requesting a re-review of my submission as I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits here. The page and all information of this page is purely informative. I have also declared on my "talk page" that I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits.

Cullen chronosphere (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cullen chronosphere. Thank you for your declaration regarding paid editing. If you want people to find it, move it from where it is on User talk:Cullen chronosphere to the end of section User talk:Cullen chronosphere#January 2021 and indent it by starting with a colon. See Help:Talk pages to better understand Wikipedia's idiosyncratic communication mechanism. Alternatively, place your declaration on User:Cullen chronosphere.
It's obvious from the draft that you have a close connection to the company. It's important to declare the general nature of that connection, regardless of whether or not you are being paid to edit Wikipedia. You might disclose, for example, that you are "a non-executive employee of Chronosphere, whose job duties do not include marketing or publicity", if such is the case. Not being forthright and transparent about it will poison your interactions with other Wikipedians. Also see WP:BFAQ#COMPANY.
The draft was rejected because it is unsuitable for Wikipedia, not because of your paid or unpaid status. Encyclopedia articles are not intended to "get the word out" or inform the world about things of which the world has not already taken significant notice. When measuring how much notice has been taken of a company, Wikipedia explicitly discounts trade press like The New Stack, Kubernetes Podcast, InfoQ, and theCube. Trade press generally has a too-cozy relationship with the companies they cover. All four of these are interviews with the co-founders of the company or investors in it, so they lack independence. Greylock and the company website are also plainly not independent. Inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 50", "fastest growing" or similar lists, is also excluded, as trivial coverage. The bottom line is that the draft cites zero sources that demonstrate notabiliy (suitability for inclusion).
No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. If you want to write about your employer, you may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, in which to do so. Volunteers do not intend to review this draft again. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello Worldbruce (talk) - thanks for your feedback! I've added my statement to the suggested location on my user "talk" page. I chose some of these references due to what I've seen pages for similar companies, like Data Dog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datadog). They use a lot of "trade press" as references. How is that different than this case? Cullen chronosphere (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen chronosphere: Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or that it is welcome. It may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. Datadog is a bad article, not something to be emulated. I've marked it and a number of other tech company articles for improvement or deletion. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

16:18:37, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Here for the snacks

hello, my draft was deleted for being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I highly disagree with this, considering that the Flamingo youtube channel currently has 8.49 million subscribers, and also because several smaller YouTubers, such as CGP Grey, with only 4.65 million subscribers, Tom Scott, with only 3.51 million subscribers, and Extra Credits, with only 2.49 million subscribers, all have Wikipedia articles. the fact that you delete my draft for not being notable enough is not only highly hypocritical, but also makes it look like your deliberately attacking the YouTuber in question, and the person submitting the draft. sincerely, Here for the snacks (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Here for the snacks: The number of subscribers is not what determines notability. What matters is whether there are reliable sources, such as books and newspaper articles, that discuss the person in detail. Your draft didn't cite any reliable sources, so it cannot be accepted. While our notability policies may seem frustrating at times, they are absolutely necessary to preserving a usable encyclopedia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
ok thanks, but is it possible for me to fix up the draft and resubmit it? sincerely, Here for the snacks (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Here for the snacks, First , determine whether it is notable by finding references.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
If it is notable in Wikipedia terms then there is nothing preventing this from being created Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Your draft Draft:Flamingo (YouTuber) was rejected not deleted, it has zero independent reliable sources, which are an absolute necessity for a draft to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 16:27:50, 10 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by TheGreatestWikiEditorEver


I am trying to write an article, yet I cannot find enough coverage, or sources for it to be accepted

TheGreatestWikiEditorEver (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

TheGreatestWikiEditorEver, I think that tells you that it failed to make the cut, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 16:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

16:35:00, 10 February 2021 review of draft by Rajarajan2409


Rajarajan2409 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Does India Today Article is not an reliable and trusted sources for getting approved?

Hi Rajarajan2409. The article in India Today is a start. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage of their topic. India Today is light on coverage, not saying much more than that he was in the film and stung by 200 bees (and even that is based on what he told them, so it isn't arms length). Try to find deeper, more independent pieces from the list of reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. His role in Penguin appears minor. An actor who hasn't had significant roles in multiple notable films is unlikely to have generated enough press for an encyclopedia article to be written about them. It may be too soon in their career. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Novice editor? There separate rules? What you are implying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajarajan2409 (talkcontribs) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rajarajan2409: You've been pointed to Wikipedia's "rules" each of the five times the draft has been declined. Yet you don't follow them. You continue to submit a draft that doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted for publication. One possibility is that you don't understand the rules. There's no shame in that. They are insanely complex, and none of us was born knowing them. When experienced volunteers help novice Wikipedians, it is often useful to present a simplified overview of the rules, rules of thumb, tailored specifically to what the requester is trying to do. If you don't find that helpful, you are welcome to refer to the full and formal rule set instead. There is a rule against tendentious editing. If you continue to submit the draft without radical improvement, it is likely to be deleted and you are liable to be blocked from editing. --Worldbruce (talk)

snowball's chance in hell? Flying Pig??? Now, I clearly understand your intention. Insulting, degrading, threading other publisher. I don't need your help, I can get approved on myself. Stop replying me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajarajan2409 (talkcontribs) 03:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

17:15:12, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Giuseppe Ardolino


Draft SADAS

Hi, I received the review result of my draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sadas). It has been declined due to not neutral point of view and some references to modify. I asked for more details (such as which text is not neutral or which references to change) to improve my page and I am waiting for an answer from those who declined my draft's submission. I need to improve my page in order to publish it. as soon as possible. Really thanks so much for your availability  Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello please help me to complete my first article draft:junaid_bhat

boxed material moved here on behalf of Prakrutiprajapanti (talk · contribs) (moved by Mathglot (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC))
Copy of discussion originally at User talk:Rjensen#Please help et seq.

Hello,hope you are doing good, i'm new here on wikepedia , i'm trying to contribute some articles on wikpedia,i have just started contributing to wikipedia and a day before i went through a draft of Draft:Junaid Bhat who is basically a known photojournalist of Kashmir India. I collected all the info about the said person from internet and then i started working on that incomplete draft as it's complete for now, i request you have a look on this draft ; help me to get my first work published thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiprajapanti (talkcontribs) 13:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Prakrutiprajapanti, hopefully the good folks here at AFC will note your request, and respond here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

19:46:42, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Prakrutiprajapanti

Hello Admins hope you all are doing good , i'm new here on wikepedia i don't have too much knowledge about the rules of wikipedia , i have just started contributing on wikipedia as someday's before i went through a Draft:junaid_bhat which was declined because it was totally incomplete and there were not enough supportive url's in the draft , so while checking this draft i went through internet and collected the information regarding the mentioned person and took this draft as my first contribution on wikipedia so i started recreating this draft which is complete now and has been sent for submission : please i request you to help me to get my first work published thank you. Prakrutiprajapanti (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Took the liberty of repairing your {{Lafc}} template, so it links to your Draft:Junaid Bhat. Mathglot (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

21:20:08, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Thespiansapien


I made an update on this article. The yellow banner that usually shows up on the bottom about submissions for "review is pending" is not longer visible. How can I check if it was submitted for review? Thanks!

Thespiansapien (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thespiansapien You need to click the blue "Resubmit" button first. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

23:10:19, 10 February 2021 review of submission by Nwachinazo


Nwachinazo (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


Can anyone explain why Draft:Nyerere Ogbonna fails to be accepted after including more than 9 third party independent sources which give the subject enough coverage to show his notability? I am beginning to see some gang up against this article and it is unfair to me. I have read and re-read Wikipedia policies and guidelines on notability and I have tried my best to improve on that issue, even seeking professional advice from senior colleagues, yet someone can walk up to decline the article for a flimsy reason. Can the editor just prove to us that no three or four sources are not enough to make the article's subject notable? This is disappointing!Nwachinazo (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Nwachinazo You criticize that "someone can walk up to decline the article for a flimsy reason", but you have been asking for a review for days. So you get one, but don't like the result. The sources you offered are not significant coverage of the subject, but just routine announcements of what this person does. Significant coverage must be in depth and substantial. Since the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything has its time. So is everyone. It is not the end of life. Time and chance meet everyone. I am very busy right now. Nice meeting you my brother. It is not a mortal combat as you think. Good day!Nwachinazo (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

23:40:16, 10 February 2021 review of draft by Rebner


Hi, what was wrong about the literature/references cited in this draft ...? (BLP of Thomas Ried, the invetor of spectral karyotyping ...) Thank you, R. Ebner Rebner (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rebner. The problem with the draft's references is that it doesn't cite any. In a biography of a living person, basically every statement you make about them should identify the source where you got the information (reviewers are a skeptical bunch, so you can expect that almost every statement will be challenged). If multiple consecutive sentences came from the same source, you only need one citation at the end of them. If you can't cite a source for a fact, you can't include it, even if you're certain it's true. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information, and Help:Referencing for beginners for help with the mechanics of citing.
The draft has a long "Selected Literature" list of journal articles written by Ried. Wikipedia does not commonly list large numbers of an academic's articles. Use selection criteria that produce a short list, and make the criteria explicit. You might, for example, list his five most highly cited articles. Perhaps some of his articles could be used as references, but the bulk of any Wikipedia article about him should come from independent sources, things not written by him. See WP:PROF to get an idea of what sort of sources might be used. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

February 11

00:25:41, 11 February 2021 review of submission by 2601:642:4980:5D40:E52F:15F2:FF68:FB6C

  • 2601:642:4980:5D40:E52F:15F2:FF68:FB6C (talk · contribs(TB)
    • No draft specified!


2601:642:4980:5D40:E52F:15F2:FF68:FB6C (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Unable to install Ubuntu 20.02.2 on Mac OS X, please help.

Hello User with the IP 2601:642:4980:5D40:E52F:15F2:FF68:FB6C, this help desk deals with questions around Drafts and their review proccess. We cannot help you with Ubuntu installation problems. Try asking at WP:Reference desk/Computing. Victor Schmidt (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

10:25:48, 11 February 2021 review of draft by Mohammad Awais Amjad Taj


Mohammad Awais Amjad Taj (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Awais Amjad Taj Your draft has no content? There is nothing to review. Theroadislong (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

11:22:54, 11 February 2021 review of submission by Danmurrayserter


Braincare is a notable term, a quick google search will show how often it is being searched for. Your brain impacts how you feel on a daily basis from your energy to your focus to your mood—as well as directly impacting quality of life into old age. Braincare as a practice is the act of making conscious lifestyle decisions in order to better care for the brain.

Danmurrayserter (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Danmurrayserter The draft had no independent reliable sources whatsoever; all Wikipedia articles must be sourced to independent reliable sources; in this case, that means you would need to provide reliable sources that discuss the use of this term(not just sources that use the term, but discuss its use). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 14:36:39, 11 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Faria326596



Faria326596 (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Blatant advertising tagged for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

17:57:31, 11 February 2021 review of submission by JaneK153

My article was rejected based on referencing issues- these were not elaborated. I would like to know what exactly was wrong with the referencing so I can better my article and get it accepted. JaneK153 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JaneK153. In Articles for creation parlance, the draft was declined (which allows improvement and re-submission), not rejected (which does not give the option of re-submission). The draft cites two references, both of which are books by Caroline Shenaz Hossein. What's confusing is that after the first two paragraphs of the draft there are no more inline citations, so it isn't clear what source(s) the remaining text is based on. There's a "See:" followed by a link to a video, and a long section titled "Further References", but it isn't clear how they relate to the text. See WP:LAYOUT for what standard appendices are used in Wikipedia articles, how they're ordered, how they're titled, and what you may have in them.
The draft is framed as an article about a concept. To show that the concept is notable (suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article), you would need to show more than the fact that Hossein coined it and what she means by it. You would need to cite independent reliable secondary sources that have something to say about her concept. Obviously they would have to be published after she coined the term, and be written by someone other than her. That rules out many of the texts you've listed as "Further References", but some of them might be usable.
If you can't identify sources that show that the concept is notable, you might still be able to write about the concept in a larger article, such as a biography of the author, or an article about the book in which she coined the expression. See WP:PROF and WP:NBOOK for the referencing requirements for such articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

18:04:52, 11 February 2021 review of submission by 2601:601:9780:F1D0:6CC6:14D:7963:57A7

  • 2601:601:9780:F1D0:6CC6:14D:7963:57A7 (talk · contribs(TB)
    • No draft specified!


2601:601:9780:F1D0:6CC6:14D:7963:57A7 (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

why did my youtube wkipedia thing get declined i just used a link to a random channel for a example im new to this stuff please answer back to me rather quickly cuz i would like to know why

Unfortunately, when you don't include any actual information about what you're referring to, it makes it difficult to help you. Be more specific about what you're talking about, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

February 12

Request on 05:29:26, 12 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Satapathysobhana



Satapathysobhana (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

11:46:26, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Xariklou96


Xariklou96 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Dear Sir/Madame,

Unfortunately, I created both a draft and an article and my draft couldn't be held for submission review because of an unintentional double-copy! What suldI do in this case?

Lots of regards, CK

11:50:34, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Big Ayeh


Template:So what should I do? Big Ayeh (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Big Ayeh. Choose a different topic to write about (we have over 6 million to choose from, most of which need improvement). See Wikipedia:Task Center if you're not sure where to start. If you're determined to write about non-notable musician Paa Kwasi, you may wish to consider an alternative outlet, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

14:47:10, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Jinxxxxxxxed


Jinxxxxxxxed (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Why was my article on Stacyplays was not accepted

Because fandom wikis are not considered reliable sources and there is no evidence how WP:NPERSON is met Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

15:16:07, 12 February 2021 review of draft by Amana22


Hello, I am asking for help because I am a fairly new Wikipedian and I submitted what is only my second biography of a living person and it has been rejected after submission (my first BLP in 2018 went live without any issues). The first issue raised was 'reliable sources'. And the second was 'reads more like an advertisement'. After conducting more research into reliable and verifiable resources on Wikipedia, I can see why the article was rejected on the basis of 'reliable sources': The no.1 reference on the article has become a 404 (i.e. no longer exits as a page); the no.3 reference is from one of the oldest established blogs on the internet, however I can see how this could be construed as unverifiable; and the no.4 reference is on the news page of a commercial business - so, again, I can see why this might be interpreted as a questionable source. I have now removed those sources in an unsubmitted draft, and in order to substantiate the facts, I have added new and better sources from two accredited news portals: https://techcrunch.com/ and https://bdaily.co.uk/ However, I am concerned about a couple of other sources that I believe establish concrete facts but perhaps Wikipedia does not. What is the best way for me to show you these references and get feedback before I go through the review process again?

Also, I can't see clear evidence for where the 'article reads more like an advertisement'. Please can you help me identify why / where this is? I wrote it all from facts I found in the referenced articles about him. For note, I didn't come across any controversial or negative press about him. I can see that the tone is somewhat positive by virtue of the listed things the subject has done, but the sum total still looks pretty neutral to me. I would very much appreciate help / guidance here.

Many thanks. Amana22 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Amana22 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

15:37:53, 12 February 2021 review of submission by LucyArn

LucyArn (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


Hi editors! I've taken over this project and have updated the copy and citations to re-submit a draft that is more aligned with Wikipedia guidelines. Would love any feedback or thoughts on our new submission. Thank you!

Draft contents
Please don't copy draft contents here in future. Yust give a link to the draft using th preoladed templates
  • Abbreviation: ZERO TO THREE
  • Predecessor: The National Center for Clinical Infant Programs
  • Formation: 1977
  • Purpose: infant mental and physical health; early childhood development
  • Headquarters: 1255 23rd Street, NW Suite 350 Washington, DC 20037
  • Employees: 160
  • Executive Director: Matthew Melmed, JD
  • Website: https://www.zerotothree.org/

The Zero to Three Foundation (officially: ZERO TO THREE: National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families) is a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. The organization works to provide parents, professionals and policymakers with the resources to nurture early childhood development.

Neuroscientists have documented that the first months of a newborn’s life show a tremendous amount of brain cell growth. However, parents and caregivers can still be confused and misinformed on newborn development. Zero to Three conducts research and advocates for infant and toddler well-being to support families during this critical time. The organization has found in studies that large percentages of parents underestimate how early their children are influenced by their interactions.

In 2020, Zero to Three released its second annual report, State of Babies Yearbook: 2020, that examined how racial disparities can impact a child’s life, even before birth.

References

No that reads in an entirely promotional tone, do you have a conflict of interest by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

15:38:37, 12 February 2021 review of submission by Addyygaming


Addyygaming (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

17:25:23, 12 February 2021 review of submission by EditOnOccasion1818

I am requesting listing of a REAL company that has been in business nearly 30 years and has sold its products over those years to hundreds of other companies that are household names. I keep getting rejected by Wiki for "non-conformance" even though I have modeled the article to be like one of the company's competitors - for which you have allowed their article to exist. I have even offered to please make the changes yourself that you see as non-conforming, or tell me specifically what to do. I am willing to do what it takes to make it comply so the company is properly - and rightly so - listed on Wikipedia, just as you have listed all of its competitors. I have successfully submitted content to Wiki for two others companies and so I'm not sure why this one has been made so difficult??? Please help. EditOnOccasion1818 (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi EditOnOccasion1818. Wikipedia doesn't aim to list companies, it aims to have encyclopedia articles about subjects which have attracted significant attention by the world at large. The notability guidelines (inclusion criteria) for companies don't include how long the company has been in business, who they have done business with, or whether Wikipedia articles exist about their competitors. It doesn't even matter to Wikipedia whether a company is real or not. We have articles about fictional law firms and fictional restaurants, for example (although they probably qualify for inclusion under a different subject-specific guideline). The only thing that matters is significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. The guideline goes into great detail about what those terms mean in the context of companies.
Trade journals, for example, are presumed not to be independent for the purposes of notability. EE World Online, Electronic Design, Dark Reading, EE Journal, EE Times, Power Systems Design Magazine, Electronic Engineering Journal, EE World Online, and EDN are all trade journals, so worthless for establishing notability. Bloomberg and Thomas are indiscriminate directories that aim to list all companies, so they don't do anything towards establishing notability either.
Wikipedia is forever a work in progress. It contains high quality articles and poor quality articles. The existence of an article does not mean it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or has been explicitly "allowed". It may only mean that no one has noticed it and gotten around to deleting it yet. So generally it isn't productive to compare a draft to other pages. The essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may help you understand why. If you wish to learn from example articles, be sure to use only Wikipedia's best. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

18:52:55, 12 February 2021 review of draft by Tracksthegeneral


Hello, I need help to see if my article is in the encyclopedia format and is written in a neutral expression. I tried to fix this after being rejected for my article for the first time and would like to request help to see if I accurately fixed that problem Thanks! Tracksthegeneral (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral


Tracksthegeneral (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As you are very close to the subject, perhaps you don't see just how promotionally it reads? Theroadislong (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong Perhaps that might be the case. I read over it again, fixed the parts where you said it wasn't proper tone for Wikipedia, so I would like to see if there is anything else I need to fix. Tracksthegeneral (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral

19:44:35, 12 February 2021 review of submission by 103.240.79.52


103.240.79.52 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to advertise your company. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

20:58:52, 12 February 2021 review of draft by Katesurinskaya


Hi there,

Could you please let me know where am I supposed to publish the note that I'm being paid to add the edits to the page? Thank you. Katesurinskaya (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Katesurinskaya: You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Katesurinskaya. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Katesurinskaya|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 13

00:58:05, 13 February 2021 review of submission by Generaltipsng

kindly take a review again for the name hoganhost is a notable company in calabar , if the is any error point it out accordingly Draft:Hogan_host Generaltipsng (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Generaltipsng The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

08:09:21, 13 February 2021 review of submission by 103.47.34.20


103.47.34.20 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


08:40:50, 13 February 2021 review of submission by Aliasghar ghorbandokht


Aliasghar ghorbandokht (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


10:19:31, 13 February 2021 review of submission by Laurenzbagui


Laurenzbagui (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Laurenzbagui You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves; this is a project to write an encyclopedia. You may use your user page, User:Laurenzbagui to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user, see this page for information on acceptable user page content. I would also urge you to review guidance for younger editors. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

13:01:33, 13 February 2021 review of submission by Ringsidemd1961

{{Lafc|username=Ringsidemd1961|ts=13:01:33, 13 February 2021|page=

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harold_Lloyd_Schwartz

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Harold_Lloyd_Schwartz&action=edit


I have made all the corrections, additions and edits requested. I also removed all the copyrighted material. In addition, the draft was also just edited again by a reviewer and additional changes were made. I hope it is ready for publications, but if not, can you please tell me what other changes need to be made prior to the draft being eligible for a permanent article? Thank you for your time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Harold_Lloyd_Schwartz&oldid=1002084799

Ringsidemd1961 (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


13:24:20, 13 February 2021 review of submission by Jayjay2020


Can someone check if the draft is ready for article space? I have added some edits and sources there. I think someone will respond here. Thank you. Jayjay2020 (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Jayjay2020, I have not made a formal review, but I have left a comment on your draft which I hope will help you. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Timtrent, Thank you and I appreciate it. Jayjay2020 (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

16:36:07, 13 February 2021 review of draft by 100Choptanks


Thank you for the reminder! I am confused about how to cite references within the body of the piece. It's my unfamiliarity with the coding/process that's holding up publication. The sources are solid, mostly NYTimes articles! It's ironic I was contacted yesterday about this, because Feb 12 would have been T. Edward Hambleton's 110th birthday.

100Choptanks (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

100Choptanks, It can be a little arcane, but you have been pointed at WP:REFB in a comment on the draft. No-one minds a little handholding, but we will teach you to fish rather than hand you a fish.
Have a serious read and come back with questions, please. Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@100Choptanks: At the very least, at the end of a specific claim or sentence, slap a URL between ref tags: Smith was born on 10 October 1980<ref>http://www.sample1.com</ref> in Smythville, England.<ref>http://www.sample2.com</ref> Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

19:21:53, 13 February 2021 review of draft by General electric p30ch


Why don't submit my article draft to Wikipedia article;

General electric p30ch (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

--General electric p30ch (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@General electric p30ch: Please read the explanations in the large pink boxes at the top of the draft, as well as the comment(s) underneath it. If you have any other specific questions, feel free to ask them here. Please only post once, not multiple times like you did here, here and here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

19:33:50, 13 February 2021 review of draft by Troy26Castillo


Troy26Castillo (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello I need assistance on the article I am making. First, I am new when it comes to Wikipedia, and its very sad that every time I submit the article it always turned out wrong or something missing.

I understand the reasons of the admins and being patient to meet all the requirements, hopefully.

Please help me on this. Thank you.

@Troy26Castillo: Out of curiosity, have you read the various comments left by the various editors at the top of the article? They've pointed out numerous issues with the article, like the fact that you're pointing to MYX and iTunes, yet that content still remains. If someone says iTunes isn't a valid chart, don't you think you should delete that content? They've also mentioned our notability criteria for songs several times and pointed out that you need to demonstrate that the article meets those requirements. If people are actively giving you advice, I'm unclear on what you're confused about. Can you be more specific? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Okey, noted, by the way i remove already the one about Itunes. Thank you by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy26Castillo (talkcontribs) 19:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding with MYX, i removed it already, but why is the charts not a reliable source? it is on a daily and weekly basis charts in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy26Castillo (talkcontribs) 20:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Troy26Castillo: If you look at this version of the article, AngusWOOF explained that you should look at WP:BADCHARTS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the help and i understand now. I am grateful and oevrwhelmed. Thank you so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troy26Castillo (talkcontribs) 04:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

21:28:18, 13 February 2021 review of submission by Affanakaffu


Affanakaffu (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Affanakaffu, Wikipedia is not social media. Please create your reputation elsewhere Fiddle Faddle 21:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

23:43:36, 13 February 2021 review of submission by JennilyW

My draft, Sign of the Sun was declined because it didn't have any sources. Funny thing is, I took the source from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests, and it was in March 2017, so I don't get why it was declined. JennilyW (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JennilyW. By having Draft:Sign of the Sun deleted, you've made it difficult to offer advice about it. A few general points about lists of requested articles:
The sources listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests included a single independent one, so if you didn't find a couple more, that may be why it was declined. Hope that helps. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

February 14

00:25:10, 14 February 2021 review of submission by Martinthoegersen

My draft was declined due to discogs references. I used them in the discography and member section. I can see that similar articles use AllMusic, is that considered a better source? Thøger (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Martinthoegersen: Yes, with some caveats. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for more information. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

01:58:48, 14 February 2021 review of draft by TechNerd22


Some random person (doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia moderator) removed a bunch of info on my article which is waiting for review. The person was some random person, didn't even have an account, it was just an I.P. address. They removed all my info about fights and said I was off topic. The exact thing they said "off topic. Incidents at the mall are about the mall. Incidents at the school, or a school event are about the school.". Yeah, but the fights were students at the school, it wasn't just random people at the mall while people were nearby or anything. It's like saying a fight that happened between some famous people were off topic because it happened at a mall and not the famous persons house. Are random people allowed to just remove stuff from a pending article if they are not a Wikipedia moderator? I'm adding the info back. Thanks! TechNerd22 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi TechNerd22. Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that any random person can edit, without even creating an account. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that no editor owns an article and any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited. Wikipedia has no moderators, or if you prefer, everyone is a moderator. If you disagree with someone about content, don't just add it back. It's your responsibility to discuss it with them and try to reach a consensus. Before you invest too much effort in the draft, however, be aware that drafts about middle schools are very rarely accepted because it's extremely difficult to show that they meet the notability guidelines (inclusion criteria). If you want to improve Wikipedia, consider editing existing articles instead. See Wikipedia:Task Center for how to help. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@TechNerd22: In addition to the above, these edits were, in my estimation, legitimate. You are drawing a conclusion about the school being "infamous", which is a subjective evaluation, not an objective one. Further, the one source only describes one fight, not that the school is a hotbed of fights. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

09:15:14, 14 February 2021 review of submission by Fadare123467


Fadare123467 (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

11:07:38, 14 February 2021 review of submission by Urbansean


All references that could have been considered not objective and suggesting a promotion of the business have been removed. I believe what remains is factual and comparable with other retail business entries.

This is not intended as adverting. I am learning Wikipedia and I selected Riviera Maison as I know the brand through friends and noted it had no Wiki entry.

I hope this helps and welcome any further advice.

Sean

Urbansean (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Urbansean The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It appears that the brand does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. The sources offered do not seem to be significant coverage of the topic, just routine announcements of business transactions. That does not establish notability.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, because as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to point out some of the other articles you were going by, we can see if those too are inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

12:24:52, 14 February 2021 review of draft by Henk Borgdorff


I have edited my page Henk Borgdorff after suggestions made to me: I have added a statement of Conflict of Interest and I have included external resources: ORID-iD and a reference to Google Scholar. Do I now meet the objections?

Henk Borgdorff

Henk Borgdorff (talk) 12:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Henk Borgdorff. The number of times your work has been cited suggests that your research has had a significant impact in the discipline of artistic research. Wikipedia aims to have encyclopedia articles about such academics. A Wikipedia biography, however, should be based mainly on independent sources - what other people have written about you. The text of the draft is based entirely on your CV - what you have written about yourself. Wikipedia is not a place to host your CV.
I've added two potential sources to the draft's talk page. If you can find a couple more of a similar nature, it might be possible to use them to write an acceptable article about you. However, I strongly advise against writing it yourself; autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Instead, use Wikipedia:Requested articles to have an experienced Wikipedian write it. It may take years, but there's no deadline. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

13:33:46, 14 February 2021 review of submission by S.A Mixing


S.A Mixing (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Hello I will be happy to know why my article was declined This is S.A Mixing assistant

S.A. Mixing Are you Shalev Alon, or his assistant? The reason for the decline is given in the draft, do you have questions about it? Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves; please read the autobiography policy. While not forbidden, it is discouraged to write about ourselves, as we naturally write favorably about ourselves. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

February 15

01:34:54, 15 February 2021 review of draft by Lstewart9


My submission for a page was declined due to lack of reliable sources. I was wondering if someone could point me towards specific sections on my page that require a better citing.

Lstewart9 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lstewart9. The problem with the draft's sources is that it doesn't cite any. Every statement you make must be verifiable. The most common way to show readers where you got your information is to cite your sources inline. If you can't cite a source for a fact, you can't include it, even if you're certain it's true. The draft has an "External Links" section that you may have intended as general references. That is not the function of external links. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for more information, and Help:Referencing for beginners for help with the mechanics of citing.
Furthermore, to demonstrate that the organization is notable (suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia), aim to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the organization. In other words, not its website or publications of its partners, and not directory-style listings. An example of significant coverage of a charitable organization is this article about Friends of the Earth Ghana. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

04:47:05, 15 February 2021 review of submission by Tobias.Vogel

I would like to get Draft:Digital_Engineering published. It was declined two times already (in different states) and I think that I resolved the reason (missing reliable sources). I don't know how to proceed now.

Tobias.Vogel (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

06:30:30, 15 February 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:6:A915:5B4:75CA:77CA:158F

I have added references to the topic. 2405:201:6:A915:5B4:75CA:77CA:158F (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


08:05:38, 15 February 2021 review of draft by GertyMaude


I am confused as to why our page is being declined. I have added references - the first reference is to the UK's Companies House, another reference to the Care Quality Commission. I have added further references to a UK National Magazine. Our page continues to be rejected.

GertyMaude (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC) As you say in your draft "The page has been created by a company representative to provide a factually accurate record of the company history to date" It has been tagged for deletion as an advert. Wikipedia has no interest in promoting your business. Theroadislong (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

15:50:33, 15 February 2021 review of draft by Sarah Desse


Hi. I don't understand why my article can't be published. This is not an advertisement article. This is a biography of the artist Jisbar. This is an article that I traduced from a french article (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jisbar) on the french Wikipedia. All the sources I quoted are reliables. Can you, please, help me to understand why and get it published ? Thank you.

Sarah Desse (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

22:06:58, 15 February 2021 review of submission by Josephclarke17

I'm asking helping in editing my wikipedia biography

Josephclarke17 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

22:28:22, 15 February 2021 review of submission by Irishmarxman


I created a wikipedia page for Kewsong Lee. He is the CEO and Director of the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm with over $250 billion under assets; furthermore, Lee holds many prominent positions.

"President of Lincoln Center Theater, Vice Chairman for the US Chamber of Commerce China Center and Vice Chair for the Partnership for New York City. He also is a member of the Business Roundtable, serves on the board of the US China Business Council and FCLT Global, and is a Trustee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

I think it's pretty safe to say a wikipedia page is justified.


Irishmarxman (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Irishmarxman, Since we already have an article for The Carlyle Group, it would be better to create Kewsong Lee as a redirect to this (using the text #REDIRECT [[The Carlyle Group]]), and put any information about him there, provided it is accompanied by an appropriate citation. Often, it's better to expand existing articles than create new ones. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Request on 23:00:46, 15 February 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Jake Smithy



Jake Smithy (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jake Smithy: Hi there, although you didn't mention it, you appear to be referring to Draft:Will Rowlands. The article in its current shape is just a wall of text. You should try to format it properly. You will also need to add references, and before you submit it for review, you will need to be able to show that the article meets our General Notability Guideline or our specific notability criteria for actors, found at WP:NACTOR. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.