Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeaster2023 (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 25 April 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


April 19

02:59:01, 19 April 2023 review of draft by User192828


i need help with citing sources for my draft page of an unencoded letter that looks like a cyrillic letter ge with the addition of a hook [ ◌̡  ]. i can't even find a source. can someone please help?

User192828 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC) User192828 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User192828: where did you get the information that is currently in the draft? Cite that source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:47:53, 19 April 2023 review of submission by Alexandrsashin


I had a note after review

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Can somebody help me? Why is the reference not reliable?

Alexandrsashin (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is reliable but that is all you have, and we require more, at least three usually which cover the topic in-depth with significant coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I try to add more references. Alexandrsashin (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:23:00, 19 April 2023 review of draft by Mwenye mudzi ndimi


how should i do refferencing so that my draft can be accepted and published

Mwenye mudzi ndimi (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mwenye mudzi ndimi: you need to clearly cite reliable sources (see WP:REFB) to support the draft contents, and those sources must establish that the subject is notable per WP:GNG; your draft currently does neither. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:37:55, 19 April 2023 review of draft by 31.125.3.131


can I add something to the drwft title please? [to differentiate from others with exactly same name]. also- how do I upload pictures please.

31.125.3.131 (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the title, if/when the draft is accepted, it will be moved to its correct title (probably Mike McNeill (guitarist) as that is the least amount of disambiguation necessary).
As for uploading images, see WP:FUW. Please ensure you comply with copyright rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much more importantly, your draft has zero independent, reliable zero sources, and that is what we base articles on. The subject would need to pass the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

05:30:57, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Caerdyddcymru


I had written a contribution on this Welsh writer, who has had international success and whose most recent work Lost Boys and Fairies (for BBC) is currently filming in Cardiff and has had widespread media attention. I have extensively sourced the article, however the rejection states not of significant coverage or lack of references, neither of which is accurate. Look forward to hearing more on why this article was rejected.

Caerdyddcymru (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caerdyddcymru: okay, calm down, nothing has been rejected, only declined. Rejection means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can, you just first need to address the reasons why the draft was declined. No need to go straight for the biggest gun in the arsenal, arbitration hearing (which this wouldn't be eligible for anyway).
Per WP:GNG, we need to see multiple sources, each of which simultaneously meets all the following criteria: they are secondary published sources which are fully independent of the subject, reliable (meaning, a reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking) and provide significant coverage of the subject. Primary sources such as the Curtis Brown website don't count. Interviews don't count. Sources covering related subjects, such as James's works, don't count. Works authored by the subject don't count. IMDb is not considered reliable, as it is user-generated. Against all that, which of the 42 (!) references would you say best meets this GNG standard? Please highlight the strongest three to five. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond, I truly appreciate your guidance on this matter and is much clearer that what's on the wikipedia help pages. :-)
In terms of body of work (i.e. the subject matter's theatrical and tv programmes), how are these sourced if you can't use primary sources? i.e. for the 3-5 sources, would links to the actual work (i.e. for radio programmes a link to the broadcaster where you can listen to the piece mentioned). For awards, would the URL for the actual award received be sufficient (i.e. LA Drama Critics Award website)?
Very much look forward to hearing back from you. With best wishes. Caerdyddcymru (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Caerdyddcymru: you can use primary sources to verify facts (well, some types of primary sources, and some types of facts – see the next paragraph), but you cannot use them to establish notability, which is the reason why this draft was declined.
To give a concrete example, if a company states on their website that their HQ is located in Toronto and their CEO is Cindy Lee, we can pretty much take those at face value. (But we wouldn't necessarily believe it if they tweeted it, say.) If they state that they have built a perpetual motion machine, we would clearly need independent sources to corroborate that. And no matter what they say on their website (or elsewhere), this won't contribute in the slightest to their notability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for explain that, and I totally understand why the draft was declined. Caerdyddcymru (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:04:01, 20 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Cadencerock


The article was not accepted to publish and recommended for deletion, all the facts and figure given in the text are true and the content of the article is also organisational input, thus assistance was felt to figure out the reason of rejection of the article again and again and simultaneously learn how to publish the same article as it is one of the important missions undertaken by Indian Navy


Cadencerock (talk) 10:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cadencerock: it was declined and deleted as a copyright violation (for the second time). Please review our policy on copyright violations before editing further. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:56:51, 20 April 2023 review of draft by MariaRocha16

My article got declined and I need help citing my sources so they are deemed reliable.

MariaRocha16 (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MariaRocha16: see WP:REFB for advice on referencing, WP:RS and WP:GNG on what constitutes good sources, and WP:BLP on how articles on living people need to be referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:07:23, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Kolhapurisaaj

Hey can Please tell me the cause of deletion. Kolhapurisaaj (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

op blocked lettherebedarklight晚安 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:09:55, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Ashe7896

why was my article declined

Ashe7896 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashe7896: please read the comments left by the reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:07, 20 April 2023 review of submission by 104.251.77.50

I just think it deserves a page man 104.251.77.50 (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as "deserves a page". If a subject has been covered in appropriate published sources enough to make it notable, an article on it can be included in Wikipedia; otherwise not. Desert doesn't come into it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:35, 20 April 2023 review of draft by Johnmrri


I'm editing the draft of Tom Wilson Weinberg and want to link to several other Wikipedia pages. Two of the links are ambiguous so if you were searching Wikipedia, it would ask you which one you wanted. But I'm not sure how to differentiate them in the editing code. Right now, for example, there is a link to "Giovanni's Room", the novel by James Baldwin. But it is supposed to be a link to the LGBTQ bookstore by that name.

Johnmrri (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johnmrri: this is more of a general editing question than anything to do with the AfC process, but... it sounds like you're asking about piping links (see WP:PIPE), which is a way of making a wikilink point to a different target than what is displayed to the reader; this is useful eg. when you want to use a simple display word for the link, but need to use a more complicated link word because of disambiguation needed. So for example, you might have [[Snowy (character)|Snowy]] if you wanted a link displaying the name 'Snowy' and pointing specifically to the article on Tintin's dog. If you simply make a link to Snowy, that would point to the disambiguation page, which wouldn't be helpful to the reader. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:05:37, 20 April 2023 review of submission by Wequant


Wequant (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm writing Wikipedia About GMT Token but is was declined, i can't understand reason Wequant (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:GMT Token
@Wequant: did you read the decline notice? It gives the reasons. The main one being, your draft doesn't cite a single source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wequant, your draft fails the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Their Any Way To Improve My Draft

I just recent got a alerts from my draft saying that my draft references does not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article and the reception section is extremely lacking. i normally seen this draft as perfect and nothing to change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatwonTSG2 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

09:10:35, 21 April 2023 review of submission by FT kev

I have been declined so much that I can't send anymore. It's about a Youtuber, and I need resources but no one really talks about him so I am trying the best that I can to get this posted.

FT kev (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FT kev: if "no one really talks about him", then by definition he isn't notable in Wikipedia terms, and it therefore isn't possible to have an article on him. Hence, why this has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if you check his stats and channel, it clearly shows that he is notable. FT kev (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FT kev: please review notability; it says nothing about "stats and channel". This is the end of the road for that draft, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FT kev, just to add onto what DoubleGrazing has explained, I'll remind you that views, likes, and subscribers do not translate to real world notability per se. My favorite example is Sssniperwolf, who has no article despite 35.5 million subscribers (111th all-time) and nearly 23 billion total views. This page helps to explain what it takes for a YouTuber to be considered notable. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 21:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FT kev A YouTuber might be popular but not notable. David10244 (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:02, 21 April 2023 review of draft by User192828


ok so i need help with finding sources to cite on my draft. does anyone know what alphabet could the cyrillic ge with hook be used on? is there the help of someone who could probably have... very good knowledge?

User192828 (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User192828: as I said in response to your previous similar query, cite the source(s) where you got the information that is currently in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:49, 21 April 2023 review of draft by 2601:2C4:4380:9DD0:E905:6160:E0F0:A994


Looking for some additional guidance for the re-written submission. It is a direct copy of content that appears on our Wikitia page, so I'm not sure what else needs to be changes as far as the language reading like an advertisement. Any additional feedback is much appreciated! draft:Lancium

2601:2C4:4380:9DD0:E905:6160:E0F0:A994 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft gives no obvious reason why this company should be included in a global encyclopaedia, it just describes a ROTM business that exists and does some stuff. Yet at the same time the tone and content are promotional throughout, especially the 'Solutions' (!) section is pure ADMASQ.
The sources, with the possible exception of the HPC Wire, are just routine business reporting and churnalism, none of which helps to make the company notable in Wikipedia terms, per WP:ORGCRIT.
And needless to say, whether or not an article on this subject has been accepted into some other publication out there is neither here nor there, as they have their policies and requirements, and we have ours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to respond with more detail! I very much appreciate it. Now, I can put on hold until we have additional sources. Best, Amanda 2601:2C4:4380:9DD0:E905:6160:E0F0:A994 (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:41, 21 April 2023 review of submission by Readerx nk

I am requesting this re-review cause all wikipedia guide lines have been followed, and a well descriptive article regarding the musician/songwriter deraa created.

Readerx nk (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Readerx nk: this draft has been rejected and will not be reviewed again; self-evidently not all guidelines had been followed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

07:16:24, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Blinkmass


Please Accept My Wikipedia Draft Article

Blinkmass (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blinkmass: I have rejected this draft, and requested that it be speedily deleted; so no, I will not accept it. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your church, or your religious leaders, or any other topic for that matter. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I Am Not Promoting Church Sir This Is The Biggest Congregation Church In Pune Please Accept It Sir @DoubleGrazing Blinkmass (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FTR: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashishrawde16k --bonadea contributions talk 07:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:14:41, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Abm1994

Prashna is one of the Important Marathi films and it on 17 Awards and selection in 37 Film festivals all over the world . Abm1994 (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm1994: the evidence doesn't seem to bear that out; in any case, here at Wikipedia we are concerned with notability, not 'importance'. Besides, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:55:44, 22 April 2023 review of draft by 林儀承

Dear Wikipedia editor,

I am writing to appeal the rejection of my recent submission to Wikipedia. My article was about the engineering college at our university. We believe that this article is very important because our engineering college has many international students, and when they want to learn about our college, searching on Wikipedia is the fastest and most convenient way. However, currently, our engineering college only has a page in Chinese, which is obviously incorrect. Although the engineering college at Donghua University belongs to Donghua University, Donghua University has many colleges, and our campus is also very large. Simply introducing the history, buildings, environment, ecology, etc. of the campus is already a huge amount of content, and each college contains multiple departments. Our engineering college covers 8 departments, and each department is very independent in terms of profession. The channels for further study and the activities of each department are also very different over the years. If all the information about Donghua University's campus and the various colleges is placed on the same page, I think it would be very cluttered and difficult to read.

Therefore, I would like to request the establishment of an English version of the Wikipedia page to introduce our engineering college and to continue updating the latest information, so that international students from different countries can have a convenient way to understand our college, including its history and various activities. This is very important to me, and I sincerely hope that you can reconsider my submission.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my request.


林儀承 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @林儀承: we accept articles on most topics where the subject can be shown to be notable, usually by reference to the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you can find and cite such sources, you may have an article accepted; otherwise not. This is not an arbitrary decision on our part, as in whether or not we eg. 'like the topic'. It also has nothing to do with your needs to market your institution to overseas students; for that, you need to find other promotional channels.
Note also that while most universities can be shown to be notable, very often individual departments, faculties, colleges and other such component parts are not. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:11:57, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Jamesinhere


Seems the reviewer was unable to distinguish between a company (a portion of business sold to another company) and rebranding in a region under new ownership.

The reviewers keep referring to an already article written about the company where the company sold a portion of the business to another company for some regions and the new owner doing the rebranding activity.

Also, there is mention of promotional language but what exactly to be updated is missing. Jamesinhere (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesinhere: please don't make assumptions about a reviewer's ability, just because you don't like the review outcome. (In any case, the reviewer in question is highly experienced and skilled at Wikipedia reviewing and editing, with 1,000+ AfC reviews under their belt.)
It isn't entirely clear what, if anything, you're asking, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not considered further. If you wish to challenge that, you must make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will directly take this up with reviewer. Jamesinhere (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re there is mention of promotional language but what exactly to be updated is missing, the rejection comment says almost every sentence in this draft is promotionally written, and could not be used in an encyclopedia article – nothing about any need for anything to be updated. --bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:44:55, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Boaz.levin


Hello, I would like to request a re-review. As a long-time member of the wiki community, and a writer and art and film curator, I can say that he is without a doubt that Kevin B. Lee is important and well-established critic and filmmaker (as his position as the Locarno Film Festival Professor for the Future of Cinema and the Audiovisual Arts clearly shows). While I can see why previous versions were rejected (with too many unsubstantiated phrases that read like a resume), the tone of the article and its sources have greatly improved.

And some of the criticism mounted against his previous edits was unwarranted: failing the verification of what was previously the first citation (now the third), an academic peer-reviewed article in an international and open-access journal, seems spiteful at best, and really makes very little sense. If that's not a good source, I really don't know what a good source would be.

The article has been described as reading more like an advertisement: but this is a biographical description filled with citations from notable sources, from the NY Times, academic journals, and leading academic institutions, many of which describe the subject of the article using the same terms (i.e "pioneer of desktop documentary" in Yale News, or in a New York Times article describing his practice as a documentarists "transforming phone videos into publicity and a film"). If he's described as a "pioneering filmmaker" by multiple notable sources, it's fair to say he should be described as one here too, with those sources cited.


Honestly, reading the of harsh rejections of his article is quite disappointing as a longtime wiki fan. Rather than encouraging a newcomer to the platform, these comments are spiteful, lack any sense of proportion, and even lazy. If the editors would have bothered to go through his sources they would have found the potential for a robust and well-merited entry. Instead of rejecting it on the spot, all they had to do was google around to find half a dozen additional reliable sources. Some things could be recast into a more objective tone, yes, but four consecutive rejections with little advice or guidance for what is essentially a helpful entry for people in the field (film scholars, curators, filmmakers), don't make much sense to me.

Please reconsider, and use constructive criticism rather than simply rejecting it on the spot. Boaz.levin (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Boaz.levin: there is nothing "rejecting on the spot" about this; as you probably know, this isn't the first time this draft has been created. And this version was declined repeatedly before being rejected.
Whether the subject is "important and well-established" isn't what concerns us; we need to see that they are notable, as defined in the Wikipedia context, and despite several opportunities this hasn't been demonstrated.
As the draft has now been rejected and will therefore not be considered further, your remaining option is to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:15:13, 22 April 2023 review of submission by NatwonTSG2

I Got A Alerts A Few Days Ago From Draft:Rayman (character) Show That My Draft References Does Not Show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article and the Reception section is extremely lacking, focusing almost entirely on listicles. Is there any way i can improve these things.

@NatwonTSG2: you can ignore the comment RE the 'Reception' section for now; this draft was declined for lack of notability, so focus on that instead. You need to show significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, to meet the WP:GNG standard. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:08:26, 22 April 2023 review of submission by Sob1992


Hi there are many other notable football agents that are at the same level as Hector Fernandez who have Wiki presence. Can you please review and let me know what needs to be added to get approved?

Sob1992 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sob1992: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

09:21, 23 April 2023 review of submission by Naman.m08

Can someone help me for improving my article and make it publish to Wikipedia Naman.m08 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naman.m08: this draft has been rejected, and is pending deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean can anyone help me to publish my page? Naman.m08 (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How to publish my page? Please help me to do so! Naman.m08 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is blatant advertising it will not be published. Theroadislong (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean how then other company page are published? I am not here to advertise but to let other know that this company exist too since a long time.. Naman (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you write promotional content, then you are here to advertise (see WP:YESPROMO). In any case, you shouldn't be writing about your business yourself; if it is notable enough, someone without a conflict of interest will write an article about it, one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So anyone from Wikipedia can write it? Like you? Naman (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Naman.m08: it looks like you may have misunderstood how Wikipedia functions. Nobody here is "from Wikipedia" – we are all doing this as a hobby, in our spare time. It is absolutely not recommended that somebody who represents a company creates a draft about that company. As pointed out above, the idea is that articles about companies should be created by people without any connection to the company. --bonadea contributions talk 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay sorry i really misunderstood Wikipedia. Will not repeat this in future... Naman (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:08, 23 April 2023 review of submission by AndanoD

Hi team

I would like assistance understanding why this page has been rejected, please.

The subject is clearly of relevance, being Australia's widest-circulating LGBTQ+ magazine and it is absent from a Wikipedia list of Australian LGBTQ+ titles. Even if Frooty weren't the largest – perhaps even the smallest – its presence on the list would be relevant to the community..

I have declared a self-interest. Three of the five citations are external and credible.

I can only imagine the two citations directing to the Frooty website are an issue. They demonstrate the claims made: 1. That Frooty was media partner to Mardi Gras 2. The publication dates around the impact of COVID

Should I delete the claims and references? In the category I am submitting to, the title QNews lists a number of self-directing links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT-related_magazines_published_in_Australia

Thank you in advance. AndanoD (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linkedin.com and their own website are not reliable independent sources and the other two don't mention FROOTY? Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, Theroadislong.
I have deleted the LinkedIn link and replaced with a citation from ASIC, an Australian statutory body which governs the status of corporations.
I have included three other citations from the internationally renown musician Darren Hayes, industry body Darlinghurst Business Partnership and independent LGBTQ+ news publisher Out In Perth reporting our launch. AndanoD (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndanoD: per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; currently this draft cites no source meeting that standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @DoubleGrazing. Did my reply at 14:48 cross with you advice? So far I have cited:
• An independent queer publication, 'Out In Perth' announcing our launch.
• A peak body business association, connected to Mardi Gras, publicising (on the internet) their presence on our cover.
• An endorsement from Darren Hayes (international musician) noting his presence on our cover.
• That we are media partner to Sydney Gay & Lesbian Mardi Gras
• A media partnership with Queer Screen.
• Other queer news organisations, such as QNews (a listing in the Wiki category) cites us:
https://my.qnews.com.au/event/sydney-gay-and-lesbian-mardi-gras-2022-laugh-out-proud/
I have been publishing independent media for 30 years and this title is the largest of type in the country. I appreciate the requirement for credentials. Approximately how many more credentials should I include?
@Theroadislong I am the publisher of Frooty. I declared an interest (COI) when I submitted the article. AndanoD (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to make the mandatory declaration of paid editing on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndanoD: I've gone through the sources again, and...
1. Doesn't mention Frooty
2. As 1
3. Passing mention of Frooty
4. As 1
5. Frooty's own website
6. As 3
7. Twitter is not a reliable source
8. As 5
9. Only shows the Frooty logo
As I said, none of these meet the GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Well this is certainly a learning curve!
Re: COI. I'm sorry I didn't understand how to make the COI declaration appropriately. I will revisit the procedure. I am not receiving remuneration for the post but I am connected with the company.
Re: History. Other titles in the category talk extensively about the history of the genre, including launches, court actions. Should I remove from my article discussion about other titles? Or should I simply remove the citations?
Re: Twitter. Please confirm for me that Darren Hayes official account talking about our interview with him is an "unreliable source". I appreciate twitter can be a cesspit but does discretion apply here?
Re: Frooty's own website. As mentioned previously, other titles [QNews] in this category have self-pointing URLs. Please clarify for me why Frooty's are not permitted but QNews' are.
Another title in category, [Sydney Star Observer] has five citations, no fewer than four!! are self-pointing (80%).
Quite apart from failing the self-referencing standard, Star Observer clearly fails multiple independent and reliable secondary sources standard you referred to above.
I would appreciate some direction in relaton to my query on History and Twitter (above) as well as some consistency in applying standards, please.
I have made every effort to remove any and all marketing claims and simply present an historical and relevant face for Frooty. AndanoD (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndanoD: you can cite primary sources such as your own website (maybe even Twitter) to verify some non-contentious facts, but they don't help to establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndanoD When comparing one article to another, please see WP:OSE. Writing a new article can be hard. Also, please read WP:BACKWARD. David10244 (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 23 April 2023 review of submission by Flash1890

i need assitance on areas to improve on this article Flash1890 (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 23 April 2023 review of submission by Brooklyn Smith

Apparently I was trying to resubmit an article that had been deleted, and edited without my knowledge prior to deletion. The edit removed most of the sources, and all of the content of what had been in the article that referred to this artist's work post 2014! This might have been the reason it was nominated for deletion (without my knowledge), and consequently deleted a month ago (also without my knowledge). I went in to do edits to this page that has been fine for the past 9 years, to find it had been deleted. Once the deleted text was restored, I merely resubmit it knowing the reason given for deletion was actually in error. However I did not read the text I resubmitted until after it being rejected. I then found something malicious had happened to this article most likely just prior to it's nomination and consequent deletion. This is pretty outrageous actually! I would like to find out the history of the edits that caused this article to be nominated for deletion. Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Brooklyn Smith (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:43, 23 April 2023 review of submission by Ahmed EzzEddeen

I'm wondering why my page was rejected? Ahmed EzzEddeen (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmed Ezzeddeen: do you mean User:Ahmed EzzEddeen/sandbox? It has been deleted so I can't see what it contained, but from what the deleting administrator wrote, it looks like you had misunderstood what Wikipedia is: it is not a web host or platform for anybody to publish an autobiography. You can contact the deleting administrator (if you go to User:Ahmed EzzEddeen/sandbox you'll see the name of the administrator who deleted the page) on their user talk page if you have further questions. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 23 April 2023 review of submission by WorkInnov

Hello. I don't quite understand why the article has been rejected. The aim of the article is to offer a definition for the concept of workplace innovation and its history. WorkInnov (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:25, 23 April 2023 review of submission by Giest24

I would like to post this actor for the Capcom series Resident Evil. Can someone help me with this process? Thank you in advance Giest24 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

09:29, 24 April 2023 review of submission by Powsw

How do i publish the article Powsw (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 24 April 2023 review of submission by Manojwiki2021

Reliable source Manojwiki2021 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 24 April 2023 review of submission by Fraredemptor

Hi. Please help me publish this article on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Indoor_Advertising. I am a journalist and the only goal of this article is to provide people who might be interested on this subject with some info. I have already made 3 corrections of this article and I don t know what else to do to get this article online. Thank you. Fraredemptor (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 24 April 2023 review of submission by Dwinug

Move from draft to article Dwinug (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwinug: Hello Dwinug! That unfortunately will not happen since the article has been rejected due to you repeatedly resubmitting it without any improvement. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 24 April 2023 review of submission by Bestegoksel

Could you please tell me about the requirements of publishing a company page on Wikipedia and the reasons Pubinno page have been declined? Bestegoksel (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero "company pages" on Wikipedia, we have articles on notable companies. Theroadislong (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

02:38, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Anukalpsinghkashyap

What do I need to improve in it? Anukalpsinghkashyap (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot submit articles without any references at all. Please read the messages you have already received about this article, and follow the links to help pages. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:29, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Bigstorywriter

Dear Wikipedia Editor,

My article is rejected due to not meeting the notability criteria. The comment on my article mentioned that the sources I provided did not discuss the subject in sufficient detail, even though I had used reliable sources. I am writing to ask for your advice on how I can improve the article so that it can be accepted on Wikipedia.

I would like to address the comment regarding the lack of detail in the sources by providing more information and citations that highlight Vinod Tiwari's notability. Can you please suggest any specific areas that need improvement or additional sources that would be helpful? I am happy to make any necessary changes to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Bigstorywriter (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bigstorywriter. When I look at your draft, I see obvious indications of reference bombing. A single assertion should require no more than one or two references. Adding nine references to one assertion is an indication to reviewers that the author (you in this case) is straining to show notability by stacking up a bunch of mediocre references. Three excellent references are far better overall than 20 mediocre references for establishing notability. Take a look at WP:THREE, and identify what you believe to be the three very best published, reliable, independent sources that devote truly significant coverage to Vinod Tiwari and his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:09, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Pontiff Of Bread

Hello, I understand that this may seem as a random story written by some idiots, but you must understand that we take this very seriously. We really are trying to make our group a cult since we believe in this kind of stuff. Thank you for listening, I hope you understand. Pontiff Of Bread (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontiff Of Bread: and I hope you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for promoting your 'cult' or any other such nonsense. Please drop this now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Concord2005

What is the problem? Why declined this again submitted by me? Please give me the reason Concord2005 (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Concord2005: this is pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I will request deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:08, 25 April 2023 review of submission by Traxezz

The article was rejected on the ground of failing WP:BIO due to insufficient in-depth coverage.
From what I gathered from my research, Wang was quite a prominent leader of public opinion within the PRC before he was blacklisted by the Chinese government in 2019. While he does not have an exact reason for why he was banned in China, it was possibly because he was being too influential in public opinion (aka. too notable) in China as his social media account on Weibo had become more influential than some other state propaganda agencies' account such as the People's Daily. [1]
It really is a shame that 99% of his online presence and coverage within China had been pulled off the internet by the censorship board hence making it near impossible to find any in-depth coverage of him within China. In this case, the subject failed WP:BIO not because he was not notable, instead it was by the design of the CCP censorship board to demote his notability within China. In my opinion, I think the subject of the article deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding notability. I think that it is unfair to hold the notability of a journalist who was censored by an authoritarian regime to the same standard as a Western journalist who has the protection of freedom of speech.
I have since added more inline citations from Western media such as the BBC, DW and SCMP that survived the censorship board's purge, but they also only mentioned the subject briefly, probably failing WP:INDEPTH as well. However, I think that the fact that reliable sources such as the BBC and DW would quote the subject's opinion when covering a news story is a testament to his notability in itself. And in that sense, as well as the context that the subject's notability was intentionally "nerfed" by the Chinese government, I hope that the rejection can be reviewed.

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfIAXT-gHos


Traxezz (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Traxezz: firstly, this draft wasn't rejected, only declined; rejection means you cannot resubmit; decline means you can, once you've addressed the decline reason(s).
Secondly, there is no such option as "benefit of the doubt regarding notability": either sources exist, or they don't. Or (and I may be going out on a limb here) if your contention is that sources used to exist but no longer do, then at the very least we would need to see solid evidence of that, not just say-so.
Worth noting that Wikipedia is not a platform for publicising something that otherwise gets no publicity, nor for righting great wrongs. We publish summaries of what has been published elsewhere, without advocacy or promotion.
Finally, even if an exception from the usual notability requirements could be made, we would still need to see reliable published sources to verify whatever is said about the subject. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my bad for the rejected vs declined thing. I meant to say declined, not rejected.
I do understand that wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY which I don't think the draft is. I've had a history of removing promotional content from Wikipedia and I know what a promotional piece looks like. I am mentioning the blacklisting/censorship not because I am trying to right a wrong, but just trying to add context to the lack of resources on a subject which the reviewer described as "should be notable". Apologies if it was phrased in an easily misunderstood manner.
On the subject of misunderstandings, by "benefit of the doubt" I am not asking for an exception to the rules, I myself had abided by Wikipedia's rule closely when editing articles which are evident in my contribution history. What I meant is that it is in my opinion that this particular draft had been held to an unreasonably higher standard of WP:INDEPTH given the context. To be clear, I don't think that the context should give the subject an exception to WP:INDEPTH, but at the time of submission, there is already a reference to a 4 pages article about the subject in Japanese (of which I sourced from the jp wiki about the subject). I have since added another 2 articles from RFA about the subject but they are in Mandarin.
My question is: Does the coverage have to be in English to satisfy WP:INDEPTH for en wikipedia? If so I think it is impossible to satisfy WP:BIO for now and I should put this draft on hold until there is more significant coverage of the subject in English as current there is only one in-depth coverage of the subject in English from VOA with the rest mainly in Mandarin.
Regards,
Traxezz (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traxezz: no, sources don't have to be in English, as long as they meet the WP:GNG criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting more confused as WP:GNG is a pretty low bar imo and collectively my references certainly meet the requirements under WP:GNG. I suppose this is getting out of the territory of Help Desk and into the territory of the Teahouse. While this is not the first article I've created, I do admit that this is my first biography about a living person type article. I suppose I will take this discussion and my questions to the Teahouse instead. --Traxezz (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Traxezz: I don't know what you mean by "collectively [your] references" meet the GNG standard. Just to be clear, each of the sources (that you're relying on to establish notability) must at once meet every criterion of GNG, ie. be independent and reliable and secondary and provide significant coverage. It's not enough that some sources are secondary (but provide only passing mentions), while others provide sigcov (but are primary), etc.
And far be it from me to brief against the Teahouse, but I would argue that the best place to get advice on the AfC process is indeed here at the AfC Help Desk. You're of course welcome to choose whichever channel you prefer, but please don't post the same query in multiple places. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that I am asking in the right place.
To answer your question, not all references in the draft meet every criterion of GNG, but for one that doesn't, it was substantiate with another reference that do meet GNG. For example, for the sentence that states that the subject was temporarily suspended by his employer, I linked to both a primary source and secondary source. I suppose to fully abide by the GNG, the primary source should be removed.
Anyway I don't think this has anything to do with why the draft was declined. The reviewer commented that the sources "are secondary & reliable, but only mention the subject briefly (there is no in-depth coverage). To prove notability, add some in-depth secondary sources, like news articles.".
This confuses me as the draft had references to two in-depth article about the subject, one in Japanese on bunshun.jp and another in English on VOA reposted from AP. While I am not sure if bunshun.jp is news or not, AP definitely is news.
As mentioned earlier, I have since added references to more news articles from the BBC, DW and SCMP that quoted the subject in their news stories to substantiate notability of the subject. In addition, I've also added reference to another two articles from RFA about the subject to satisfy in-depth coverage.
I was going to ask if this is sufficient to submit the draft for a second review but on a second thought, I think the draft should be copyedited by someone else more proficient in English than myself before it is up to Wikipedia standard. So for now, I will just leaving the draft as it is. Regardless, thank you for your help.
Regards,
Traxezz (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:24:08, 25 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jeaster2023


I am looking at the feedback of this article. Compared to other schools seen on Wikipedia I believe the school is more notable (for example, Woodbridge High School). The school is recognised in national case studies by the Department for Education, is 150 years old and won an Olivier Award (internationally recognised award) for Outstanding Achievement in Opera. Please advise further.

Jeaster2023 (talk) 13:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1151667148"