Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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

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

January 22[edit]

11:37:33, 22 January 2022 review of draft by Irishkiwi007[edit]

I am not sure what more I can do to reference this article. The documentary was published on You Tube and is still there. The Director commented on facebook the number of views in the first 48 hours (reference to FB post added). The movie details (producer, director, cast, etc) have all been taken from the movie credits.

This is a small time product on a small budget with no advertising. Maybe watch Battleground Melbourne before you reject again?

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Irishkiwi007 The content of the documentary is immaterial. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. It will only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. If no independent sources write about this documentary, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Facebook and YouTube are not independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I also gather that you may have an association with this film, if so, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

14:29:20, 22 January 2022 review of submission by A Cutting Edge Glass[edit]

Hello, I would really like to know the reason why my post was rejected. The text is written organically and all the information is 100% accurate, I also I think the information about this product is very useful and I don't think there is any misuse. Can you please give me advice so that I can improve my post and so that it is eventually accepted by you.

Best Regards! A Cutting Edge Glass & Mirror A Cutting Edge Glass (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A Cutting Edge Glass Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a topic, or to advertise a topic. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a topic, showing how that topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your draft offers no sources, which are required for verification purposes. It is also worded as more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

15:47:36, 22 January 2022 review of draft by Rkieferbaum[edit]

Hi, everyone! I'm experienced in ptwiki (portuguese) but haven't done many edits in enwiki, so I'm here to request a little assistance. The article above was moved to draft with the request to add more reliable, independent sources. It currently has 26 references, most of which are from well established media vehicles (including the BBC), though, granted, most of these aren't in English. I'm guessing this is the reason for the move and am currently working on adding more sources in English.

If there's anything else of note, then constructive input would be more than welcome.

Thanks and cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rkieferbaum: I have not reviewed the sources but English sources are not required so that is not the issue. I suggest reading WP:THREE and posting a note on the draft's talk page with the three best sources you believe establish notability. I also suggest trimming out some the sources. There is generally no need to have multiple sources to support a fact so use the best one. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

19:28:45, 22 January 2022 review of submission by A40585[edit]

I'd like some more in-depth feedback on my article's rejection. The reason it was rejected was reading like an essay. I would like a bit more feedback on why this was, since I read the links the reviewer linked when I was writing the article, and I thought I was writing in a relatively encyclopedic fashion. Everything is sourced in primary/secondary sources (I admittedly need to fix up citing Wikipedia for a few sentences, I will do that tomorrow when I have the time). I made sure to not include my opinions, and basically summarize what my sources said about the topic. I would find it very useful to find more specific pointers about what language/parts of my article are specifically essay-like, since I thought I was doing what the links my reviewer linked were doing. Thanks a lot! A40585 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: As written it reads more like an educational essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Keep it simple. Stick strictly to what the sources themselves say, do not extrapolate, and do not editorialise. You're not writing for the benefit of a bunch of students, you're writing for Joe Blow Splhamoney who's not looking for textbook examples; they just want an overview of what it is and a back-of-the-napkin explanation of what it does. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

00:28:15, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Sunil2404[edit]

Sunil2404 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote an article about a crypto project and also provided the link of an article published on Postmannews but still it got rejected. Please help me to publish the article.

Sunil2404, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. It requires independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the subject and must be written in a neutral tone. Additionally, it has been tagged for deletion as in its current state, there is no chance of it being an article.Slywriter (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sunil2404: Care to take a mulligan on the topic area?A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

06:15:05, 23 January 2022 review of draft by Deshabandara[edit]

My Article "Ruwan Fernando" has been rejected due to lack of references. Shall I put the youtube links of my released video songs? Deshabandara (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Deshabandara: No, because we shouldn't be citing music videos for anything (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject). We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable.A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

06:55:41, 23 January 2022 review of submission by[edit]

I have resubmitted much more information to Wikipedia in the correct format and would like it to be re-reviewed and aproved. (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further barring considerably more and considerably better sources; we do not cite LinkedIn for anything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 06:59:56, 23 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachitj[edit]

I can understand there are long pending request but cannot expect rejection within 3 minutes of publishing my content. Reference are from wikipedia pages itself. Will request to review it again and I promise, I will keep updating the page.

Sachitj (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sachitj: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. The article as written is also promotional ("is a respectable and acclaimed name in the world of short films"? Really?). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

07:58:20, 23 January 2022 review of submission by ArticleCompiler[edit]

Hello, I would like advice on how to improve my submission for it to be accepted. I have read the guidelines and advice but I am at loss as to how to implement the general notability guideline. Thank you in advance.

ArticleCompiler (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@ArticleCompiler: Absent more and better sources that discuss Tantei at length, this draft isn't going anywhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

16:53:57, 23 January 2022 review of submission by profjrhodes[edit]

The page got declined because of lack of reliable sources--don't know how to address this, since I provided official/public websites verifying claims...? Also, maybe my reference style is incorrect. Help! (Note: I have announced my potential conflict of interest here. I don't editorialize, just list verifiable facts. Profjrhodes (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

18:23:51, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Ugloud[edit]

Ugloud (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ugloud, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional content. Articles must be sourced to reliable, independent sources.Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 18:27:04, 23 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by BG Gurung[edit]

BG Gurung (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

02:19:25, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Deshabandara[edit]

Dear Sir,

Please let me know how should I claim my identity.

Thank You

Deshabandara (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Deshavandara, Wikipedia pages are created for subjects that show notability in secondary reliable sources. A small fraction of humans who lived/live/will live on this planet will actually meet the standards for having an article. Focus on being successful and someone, someday may write a wikipedia article about you.Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Deshabandara: Wikipedia is not social media. Subjects do not "claim their identity" here (and in fact shouldn't be editing about themselves), and cannot dictate content in an article about them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 02:32:44, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by JosePiedra[edit]

I'm requesting assistance because DGG rejected my article. The message I received states, "The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: basically political advertising."

DGG doesn't cite any examples or evidence to demonstrate how my article "is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," nor does he provide any evidence to support his completely subjective categorization of the article as "political advertising." In other words, DGG's subjective assessment without providing evidence to support his claims demonstrates his failure to abide by the Wikipedia neutrality principle.

Having reviewed my submission, I fail to see anything about it that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e., the Five Pillars. I would hope that a more objective reviewer/editor can see that the rejected article is written from a neutral perspective and absolutely not "political advertising" as DGG capriciously claims. (The article even documents, with citations, that County Commissioner Keith Baker is term-limited and has stated that he has no plans to run for any other elected office.) Additionally, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles/entries on Wikipedia about various politicians at all levels of government, and frankly, the article I submitted is better quality than several entries that I've read about politicians.

Everything in my article includes citations for sources of the information included, and the article is written from a neutral point of view, which further undermines DGG's claim of "political advertising." For example, this entry about a Colorado politician, includes the following biographical information without citations: "Kerr attended Foothills Elementary School, Dunstan Middle School, and Green Mountain High School, all within HD 26. Kerr received a B.A. in Geography, an M.A. in Information and Learning Technologies, and an Administrative Leadership and Policy Studies license from the University of Colorado."

If anything, DGG's comments demonstrate disrespect for my legitimate work as a professional with a graduate degree and more than 30 years of professional experience as a writer and editor of publications in technical, scientific, business, history and many other disciplines.

For what it's worth, I started contributing to Wikipedia to improve entries related to Central Colorado, where I've worked as a professional editor and journalist for over 15 years. After making significant improvements to entries of local importance, I began working to create new entries to improve the information available about the people and places important to this region. After a decorated military careeer, Keith Baker has been a pillar of the local communities. Unfortunately, I was not able to find citable sources for most of his military achievements, but his other accomplishments, from helping to establish Browns Canyon National Monument, opposing Nestle Waters Norht America's groundwater extraction, are fully documented in my article. I have no interest in "political advertising," and I resent the subjective, unprofessional manner in which DGG rejected my article based on that false assertion. If anything in my draft does not meet Wikipedia standards, I'd appreciate a response from someone with enough professionalism to point out exactly what misses the mark and what can be done to address the deficiency.

I look forward to a reasonable response.

JosePiedra (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

JosePiedra A county level politician does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, which means that Commissioner Baker must meet the broader definition of a notable person. I believe you that there are other similar or worse articles out there; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. I don't see where DGG was "unprofessional" in just giving their views. That you disagree with their assessment (which is fine) does not mean that they were unprofessional in giving it.
The draft does a good job of summarizing what he has been involved with, but seem to have little coverage of him personally. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic have chosen on their own to say about it. Please tell the three best sources you have for this person which provide significant coverage of them.
You say you are a professional writer; do you work for or represent Commissioner Baker? If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

06:52:39, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Luckyluce[edit]

Luckyluce (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Luckyluce, you don't ask a question but your draft cites no sources. Need independent secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

07:48:33, 24 January 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6[edit]

Updated references. Kale My Name is very popular in black community. Unless you are black, you should not be deciding if this is notable enough. Please allow the page! 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works; the race of the reviewer does not play into whether an article or draft meets the notability criteria, and you cannot request that persons of a certain race(which we have no way to verify anyway, as we don't ask for proof of race here) review a draft. It is not us "deciding if it is notable enough"; you or those part of what seems to be a campaign to include this restaurant, must demonstrate that the restaurant receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets WP:ORG, the definition of a notable organization. As the draft was rejected, this seems unlikely, and as such it will not be considered further. Please use social media or the restaurant website to tell the world about this restaurant. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

09:56:46, 24 January 2022 review of draft by CarlSerafino[edit]

There is an article about this in 5 different languages. But the one I created in English was rejected. I would like to learn how to improve. I would also like to learn how to create a drop-down menu so that readers can view an article about a subject in different languages such as this one. CarlSerafino (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

CarlSerafino The draft was declined, not rejected- the terms have different meanings here; rejection would mean resubmission would not be possible. Please review the comments left by reviewers, as well as the deletion discussion linked to there. Note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I don't believe what you ask about a drop down menu is technically possible. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It isn't, and that is because each language edition of Wikipedia is technically on its own domain. It's unlikely someone who can read en.wp is going to be interested in, for example, hi.wp or ro.wp or ak.wp versions of that article, and if they are they can navigate to that wiki or use the relevant interwiki links on the left hand side. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

11:09:55, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ising4jesus[edit]

Regarding the AOZ Studio draft page...

What do I need to do to correct the problems that were flagged? I thought I'd addressed them. Do I just need additional authoritative sources?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What makes this page "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ising4jesus First, if you work for them, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell of the existence of something and what it does. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Interviews, mere reporting of activities, and other materials put out by the subject are not appropriate sources. This is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

13:17:02, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ramkashamalla[edit]

Ramkashamalla (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a blog to post our thoughts or experiences, it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 13:42:54, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan[edit]

Hello, I have a problem with an article. I mistakenly submitted two drafts and was told that, as the first one had not yet been validated, this one would be examined. The problem is that the first draft has nothing to do with the last one (three-four lines versus forty). What can I do to make sure that the second and most recent draft is examined directly? Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan, edit the source of the draft you do not want reviewed and remove the afc submission template. Though one being reviewed will not prejudice the other.Slywriter (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Slywriter! I hope it will be better now. Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections, for follow up comments. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

14:04:01, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Raavimohantydelhi[edit]

Raavi Mohanty 14:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Raavimohantydelhi: I strongly suggest you find a different topic area to work in. We take a very dim view of attempts to push fringe science, pseudoscience, and alternative medicine, as the reviewers politely told you. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

16:32:26, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Popcultr[edit]

I'm not sure I understand how Variety - one of the worlds leading entertainment magazines is not a reliable independent source :) Same for Comicsbeat and HLN ( one of the biggest newspapers in Belgium )

Popcultr (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Popcultr, Variety is an interview which means the subject's own words and views are covered. Interviews for this reason are not considered independent secondary sources and do not contribute to notability. WP:THREE independent references that discuss the subject is the simple rule of thumbSlywriter (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

18:51:21, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Puserisrivate[edit]

I am an accomplished musician looking to publish my own page, but I have run into a few problems...first, it says I am not citing my sources correctly, and secondly, not sure where I post "


Puserisrivate (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Puserisrivate, sorry to disappoint but wikipedia is not a promotional tool. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY is something you should take time to read but in short, Wikipedia pages are based on what independent, reliable secondary sources have to say about a subject. Also, should wikipedia ever publish an article about you, you will have zero control over what is added or deleted from the article.Slywriter (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

23:12:14, 24 January 2022 review of draft by PaperDrake[edit]

I can't seem to add the "children's literature" tag to my draft page for A.M. Dassu, a bestselling children's author from the UK. The other tags added fine, but this one keeps encountering an error and I don't know why. Can you tell me how to get it to work / add the tag for me please?

PaperDrake (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

05:52:31, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Alslogistics[edit]

I feel unsatisfied with the admin's decision. Here is an example And here is my useful info -> I repeat this is useful information, not advertising. According to international : ALS is Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis According to Vietnam: ALS is Aviation Logistics Corporation

I need your help in reopening that information for everyone to understand the correct definition of ALS in Vietnam Alslogistics (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot use the absence, presence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own, and this is not the venue to challenge spam deletions. You are OBLIGATED to disclose your employment and change your username; failing to do either will lead to a block.A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

06:09:29, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Poweruni[edit]

Is been know around and getting to be a huge company and i think they need a chance Poweruni (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Poweruni, Wikipedia is not for promotion. Wikipedia deals in reliable sources. Without WP:THREE independent reliable secondary sources there is little chance of an article. Also if you work for, own, or are otherwise affiliated with the company, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID, such disclosures are not optional.Slywriter (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

08:06:55, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Desktarim[edit]

Very notable. Black Community would disagree with your rejection of this page. Please look at the references. Desktarim (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep dragging race into this and you are going to deeply regret it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Desktarim You are making it harder, not easier, for this establishment to get an article. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I did look at the sources; they are almost exclusively interviews and announcements, which do not establish notability, see WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, we don't know the race of the people sitting at the computer, and neither do you. You are free to start your own encyclopedia with whatever criteria you wish to have. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
(EC) As to your sources, I refer you to the top table here:
You have no source that is unambiguously good for notability, and practically all of your sources use Kale My Name as a prop in service to Tabitha Brown. And in case you're wondering, I've blasted editors for sourcing of precisely this calibre on topics that are considerably more monochrome. This is not a matter of race, this is a matter of "Your sources are no good." —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 09:17:48, 25 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Tber617777[edit]

Tber617777 (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

09:20:37, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Desktarim[edit]

Added more references as advised. <3 <3 <3 Desktarim (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected it will not be considered further, and spamming other articles with links to "Kale My Name" is likely to lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Desktarim That is not what you were advised at all. There is nothing that you can do, you will need to move on from this. And do not create new sections with every post; please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

14:11:37, 25 January 2022 review of draft by Factcheckerkhi[edit]

Hello, this is user Factcheckerkhi. I have drafted and sent for review an article on Soch Fact Check, a fact-checking news organization that is associated with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), a part of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. My first draft was turned down due to the following reasons: subject (Soch Fact Check) does not qualify for a Wikipedia article and does not show significant coverage about the subject (Soch Fact Check) in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I checked my references and, consequently, added a dozen more references for the article to be considered trustworthy and worthy of being published. The reason I'm asking / posting here is that fact-checking is one of the most crucial jobs in present day considering how fast and vastly fake news spreads. Soch Fact Check is the top and only reliable fact-checking news organization in Pakistan and is also certified by the IFCN. Pakistan is a country rife with fake news, false claims, misleading reports, among other similar things. The primary reason for creating this article on Soch Fact Check is that Soch Fact Check has to apply for verification on Twitter in order to further cement the company's authenticity in fact-checking and to also provide a reliable, verified, and trustworthy platform on Twitter for people to turn to when misleading claims can lead to violence, conspiracy theories, anti-vaxxer propaganda, etc. It is absolutely imperative for Soch Fact Check to be verified on Twitter and, therefore, this Wikipedia article, which has been declined and not picked up again, needs to be approved and published ASAP. I understand that there are many submissions and many editors on Wikipedia and that there may be delays but this delay can end up having untoward consequences for the citizens of Pakistan.

Factcheckerkhi (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Factcheckerkhi Wikipedia has no interest in any requirements Twitter or other social media imposes on your organization for their processes. Nor does Wikipedia have any interest in enhancing search results for your organization. We are only interested in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. It is not enough for your organization to merely exist and for any article about it to merely tell it exists and what it does. You will have to find some other way to get verified. It is curious that Twitter would allow Wikipedia as a form of verification as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Factcheckerkhi: That Wikipedia article option isn't intended for companies made in the last 20 years; it's intended for entities whose career/history largely predates the Internet entirely. Hence why the Twitter page explicitly points out the article must meet our notability guidelines in some fashion. A quick-and-dirty job isn't going to cut it, and we frankly wish Twitter would stop having that as an option because the end result is relentless spam from people who only see an article and not the man-hours of work that goes into writing a well-sourced article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
(Re-signing to fix ping)A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

15:39:31, 25 January 2022 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What does enclinged mean?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Any facts in Draft:Enclinged that can be substantiated by reliable sources could be added to a dictionary. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

16:53:14, 25 January 2022 review of submission by Clone Trooper07[edit]

Hello, I just wanted a re-review because I believe that this game is, in my opinion, is important. I am an avid speedrunner of this game and I am currently trying to get this game added to the official selection of games. If I could get this article on Wikipedia it would make getting it on the games selection so much easier. Thanks have a nice day. ^-^ Clone Trooper07 (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Clone Trooper07, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not exist to help promote subjects. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that covers WP:NOTABLE subjects which have coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Your article cites no sources, shows nothing notable and your submission is in bad-faith as you are trying to use wikipedia for a purpose contrary to its mission.Slywriter (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

January 26[edit]

03:53:21, 26 January 2022 review of submission by Adeelkhanwwc[edit]

Adeelkhanwwc (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

07:29:37, 26 January 2022 review of draft by Arunudoy[edit]

I am requesting a review on the draft page because I am blamed for "a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict", for which I am too stressed. I have never created an article here for the money, nor even I will. I have no connection or relation with the subject person. The subject person is notable, I have added reputed citations too. Moreover, a simple click on notability factors will justify. Arunudoy (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I would like to mention some of the top citations as below:


I hope such is more than enough as there are more citations like,,,, and all mentioned by Wikipdia.

Regards- Arunudoy (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arunudoy: In the sources you list above, only TRT World describes Baruah as a global expert. The other sources are only passing mentions, where Baruah isn't the subject. You might have more luck if you can find some book reviews for his work and use those to cite the books. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Dear TechnoTalk, book reviews are too added in citations. Please have a look at Draft:Sanjib Baruah, and let me know your opinion. Regards -Arunudoy (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arunudoy: You've done a great job finding reviews. I think Baruah meets WP:NAUTHOR now. Pinging Scope creep as the original reviewer, who also saw the need for book reviews as the path to notability. TechnoTalk (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Dear TechnoTalk, it would be selfishness of me if I don't admit edit helps by Beccaynr and Djm-leighpark. Beccaynr helped the Draft with more citations. :) -Arunudoy (talk) 05:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arunudoy: These references you put above and in the article aren't sufficient for a BLP. They need to be independent, in-depth and reliable, to count as a WP:SECONDARY source. None of them are in-depth, so don't count. When I reviewed the article I checked the first two blocks of references and there wasn't enough for mainspace. Regarding WP:UPE and WP:COI. They are seperate subjects. If a editor has a COI, the article is checked afterwards to determine if there is content that needs to be removed. If the article is sufficiently notable, it would be kept, even if your blocked. That is Wikipedia policy. scope_creepTalk 10:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

12:37:11, 26 January 2022 review of submission by Sophron~trwiki[edit]

I have been trying to get approval for this page and I received a reply from help desk, saying that it is not possible to publish at all and last rejection of my draft is final. However, I want to point out this article: which is very close to my page. I can't see the content different and find it unfair. Please explain me why me article is not worthy compared to Sandals Resort and I am ready to make proper changes.

Thank you.


Sophron~trwiki (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

See other appallingly promotional articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sophron~trwiki: Despite also being somewhat advertorial (although not as much as your draft was), Sandals has more coverage, suggesting they are more notable and more deserving of an article. It's also harder for a single hotel to get coverage versus a chain. TechnoTalk (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

14:37:31, 26 January 2022 review of submission by Benwoka1978[edit]

I wish to add our club badge to the WOLLASTON VILLAGE FOOTBALL CLUB page, but our logo is not being accepted for upload Benwoka1978 (talk) Benwoka1978 (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Benwoka1978 Fair use images are not permitted in drafts. Once accepted, you may then add the logo. Images in general are not necessary to get a draft approved. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You say "our club", please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
New users cannot upload images, your account must be four days old. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

20:14:45, 26 January 2022 review of draft by[edit]

Hello, I am currently working to update the Krissy Mashinksy page in hopes to gain approval for the publishing of a live page. I am adding additional reliable outside sources to ensure to address the "notability" issue raised in previous reviews, but wanted to ensure there were no other issues on the page's approval. Please advise if there is, and if there are best practices to ensure we can show Krissy Mashinksy's notability and ensure a quick and easy approval of the page. Thank you! (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. There is no way to guarantee a speedy approval, do you have a specific need for a speedy approval? Who is "we"? If you represent Krissy Mashinsky, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures.
The draft reads as her resume, and is sourced to press releases and other sources that have little discussion of Krissy. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(i.e. not a press release) to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

20:24:08, 26 January 2022 review of draft by Michiganwolverinette[edit] I wrote this draft and got the following response:

"Submission declined on 22 January 2022 by Rusalkii (talk). Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at TT195 instead."

I doublechecked and they're *not* the same. Rusalkii might have gotten the numbers transposed. What do we do from here?

Thank you!

Michiganwolverinette (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michiganwolverinette thank you for coming here. I will leave a comment on the draft. Please continue to do whatever needs to be done to it, resubmitting when ready. Mistakes do happen. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

01:20:08, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Supermanfan1979[edit]

My page was denied because it didn't have reliable sources. I referenced the Better Business Bureau, the production companies' own website, an article written about them, and a link to the website with all the information about their current project. What other kind of reference links should I add? If the page can't be found under Theme Parkology, check Thank you Supermanfan1979 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Supermanfan1979 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

01:27:18, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 고양이 발자국[edit]

고양이 발자국 (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

고양이 발자국, you didn't ask a question but wikipedia does not accept ads. Wikipedia is not for promotional use and please see WP:COI and WP:PAID given your likely connection to the company.Slywriter (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

04:47:11, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Dgregory4[edit]

My article submission was declined because the subject did not meet the notability criteria. However, I'm not sure if the reviewer applied the notability guidelines for academics to my article or not. The subject of my article holds a named chair at a major research institution (Baylor University is an R1 school; only 137 universities in the U.S. have that designation). Moreover, in the U.S. there are two major guilds for homiletics, and my subject is the co-founder of one of those guilds as well as the editor of its peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, he was recently honored with a Festschrif. Do you think he meets the notability requirements for academics? Also, when I submitted the article I did so in the general biography category; is there a separate category that I should have submitted it to for academics?

I appreciate any guidance you can give in this matter. Dgregory4 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Dgregory4 Dgregory4 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dgregory4: - The sources you included are called primary sources. They are papers Gibson wrote himself, or directory listings or announcements made by the organizations he worked for. I don't see any third party coverage of him. Notability sometimes comes from what others write about a person or subject. Without articles written about the subject, the only path to notability (at least in Wikipedia's definition) is to see if papers Gibson wrote are frequently cited, thus showing Gibson's academic influence. Here's some information about citation metrics. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics There's no category to submit the info. That's irrelevant. Skilled reviewers apply notability guidelines depending on the subject. Lastly, it won't help if you can't find proof of his works being cited, but if you can, you'll also want to clean up the syntax. There should be no inline citations, no bolded section titles, and section titles should be sentence case, with only the first word capitalized. TechnoTalk (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

06:36:57, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Fleacollar[edit]

Fleacollar (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi There-

I submitted an updated article for 'Tim Mostert' last week. I made all the requested changes and am awaiting feedback, hoping the subject will be able to go up on your platform. The article was declined twice, but seems to be in the correct format now, after I learned to follow your process and article citing rules.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

Tim Mostert

The reference are very poor and don't prove the person is notable. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

07:37:25, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 2130598shreyamrao[edit]

I have been given the assignment to write a few lines about myself as a part of my course. The deadline is 28th January at 11.59 pm Please do the needful to publish this article

2130598shreyamrao (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The draft has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a social media platform or a place to post your autobiography. --Kinu t/c 18:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

09:14:47, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 2409:4071:200C:9297:0:0:776:58AD[edit]

2409:4071:200C:9297:0:0:776:58AD (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The person isn't notable in the least. scope_creepTalk 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

09:30:07, 27 January 2022 review of draft by OurWayz[edit]


Thank you for the quick review of my draft submission.

I realize that I did not have references to support the material. I personally graduated grade school from Mullikin Elementary and recently realized that, if I didn't document its existence based on my memories for others to expound upon, the school will disappear from history. It will be effectively erased.

So, the reason I drafted the Mullikin Elementary School piece for Wikipedia is for the exact reason it was rejected by Wikipedia. There are no really reliable sources online out there, except my remembrances. The only support I can provide is a entry for the school at

On the other hand, there is nothing controversial in what I wrote.

Could you reconsider Wikipedia's rejection of my draft, please?

Thanks and best regards,


OurWayz (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT for merely providing information. A Wikipedia article about an organisation must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organisation. Wikipedia has no interest in what you want to say about it only in what others unaffiliated with the school choose to say about it. Theroadislong (talk) 09:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

09:43:56, 27 January 2022 review of submission by[edit] (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

please advice what can i do to publish this page, this page is regarding CMD of ntpc shri gurdeep singh

There is nothing that you can do, the draft article(not a "page") was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources, showing how the person is notable as defined by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

17:02:15, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Qazigundstreets[edit]

Qazigundstreets (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

18:08:13, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Samostadxxs[edit]

Hello why it's not possible to post about Mr.Pooyan Mokhtari on wikipedia?He is famous and talented enough as google recognizes him.what is wrong with here? Samostadxxs (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

18:17:38, 27 January 2022 review of submission by 2402:4000:1382:E587:DA8:7505:9BEB:A32F[edit]

2402:4000:1382:E587:DA8:7505:9BEB:A32F (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

18:33:18, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Itisthebio[edit]

Hi Wikipedians, i need help checking if the sentence and words are correct or any changes needed please change it

Itisthebio (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

19:18:13, 27 January 2022 review of submission by Wintercake93[edit]

got told to go here to see why my article was declined

Wintercake93 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Poor Mans Poison @Wintercake93: The sourcing is insufficient. You can't use YouTube, Spotify and social media to show notability, since anyone can put content there. You need to find things written about the band by independent sources. See WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

20:53:18, 27 January 2022 review of draft by Liza Zimmerman[edit]

Hi I added to the draft of Tor wines and documented it with many reliable sources but I have had few people question the listing. Can you help me fix it? Thanks,

Liza Zimmerman (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liza Zimmerman: I cleaned it up a bit to help you out. Keep thinking about reliable, independent sources that discuss the vineyard, or its wines. It's still a bit thin. See WP:RS and WP:GNG. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

January 28[edit]

00:33:15, 28 January 2022 review of draft by ItsTimeNow[edit]

Hello. I'm Drafting an article called Draft:Dante Santiago. He is a prominent music executive, also being mentioned on 21 different wiki pages. For some reason the first few drafts were not accepted. I carefully read the criteria and added many reliable sources to what was needed. Can you read and help me fix this draft if necessary? Thank You.

ItsTimeNow (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)