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 Wikicontributor1993 (talk | contribs) at 17:13, 25 March 2023 (→21:05:27, 23 March 2023 review of submission by Wikicontributor1993: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		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


March 19

08:20:43, 19 March 2023 review of submission by Raghav1788


Raghav1788 (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raghav1788: you don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18:37, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Walnuthillstreet


Hello i have edited this draft and attached what i consider to be reliable sources and removed information that could not be sourced. I would be very grateful if someone could review for me before i resubmit. Thanks in advance ---

Walnuthillstreet (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Walnuthillstreet: in other words, you're asking for a review, before you resubmit this for a review? We don't provide 'pre-reviews'; when you feel that you've addressed the reasons for the earlier declines, please just submit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks will do Walnuthillstreet (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:34, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Overly Simplistic Username


Hi there, the article has been made a draft for not being properly covered and sourced? Are there any specific areas that this seems to apply to which my novice eyes have missed? Also could someone please clarify the purpose of a stub as I was under the impression that an article being a stub meant that it gave some understanding but still left room to be improved in the future and expanded upon? If that is true then does that not negate the point in regards to it not being sufficiently in-depth by USER:M.Ashraf333's standards?

Just looking for a bit of clarification and advice here.

Thanks!

Overly Simplistic Username (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Overly Simplistic Username: this was draftified because the subject doesn't appear to be notable, which is fundamental requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. There's nothing in the career etc. details that would seem to make her inherently notable, therefore notability must be established via WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. None of the sources cited meets this standard.
And yes, stubs do get some leeway, but mostly in the breadth of coverage and completeness of contents, not in terms of notability, or for that matter verifiability. (Not that this is IMO anymore a stub, BTW.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:20, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Aniprk007


My article, Draft: Gumraah (2023 Film) was rejected even when it has all the relevant information and sources to confirm the same, in lieu of that a similar named draft, Draft:Gumraah (2023 Film) exists which has only a single line written as of now. Kindly recheck my draft Gumraah (2023 Film)

Aniprk007 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aniprk007 The draft was declined before, not rejected -- rejected means the draft won't be considered further, while declined means you can address the reasons for the decline, and resubmit. The draft is currently being reviewed. What does "The movie was set to go on floors in the summer of 2020..." mean? Is this something in Hindi, or English spoken by people from India? I have never heard that expression before. If it means the movie was set to be in theaters on that date, or released on that date, please reword that sentence. Also, I don't think the actor's names should be italicized when they are mentioned. I made a couple of very small copy-edits to the draft. David10244 (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions I have made the necessary changes. If you have any further suggestions do let me know.
Also there's another draft Draft : Gulmohar (2023 TV Series) which should be deleted, as the title mentions it as a TV Series but actually it's a Film and an article for the same already exists by the title Gulmohar (2023 Film) Aniprk007 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aniprk007 Editor Sush150 made several edits and moved the article to mainspace. David10244 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:13, 19 March 2023 review of draft by Hhbowie


I am confused by the feedback I am getting. The reason for my latest rejection is that my draft entry reads too much like an advertisement. But then the specific words that are cited as objectionable are clearly placed in a section titled "Reception." If the reception has been favorable, then wouldn't you expect the words in this section to sound a bit like an advertisement? Is the problem that I should take out the whole section? But then I'm not sure how to include citations to several good independent sources and, of course, it is also important to include a healthy number of these in the article. So I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. I don't believe that any of the text outside of the "Reception" section reads like an advertisement.

Hhbowie (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "known for its powerful features, an abundance of import and export options, its many customization options and its friendly native Mac user interface" is nothing but blatant advertising! Theroadislong (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am/was just trying to summarize what others (cited neutral third parties) have said about the application. If people have gone on record as saying these things, then how is it "blatant advertising" to summarize what has been said? Hhbowie (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhbowie Language that praises can sometines be acceptable if it is carefully worded, such as "Reviewer Mary Smith at ABC Reviews called (the product) "fantastic"". (Reference goes here) Some reviewers don't like this much puffery, even if it's referenced. I can't see what was written before being deleted. David10244 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 20

06:30:29, 20 March 2023 review of submission by Mambomo

provided enough reference Mambomo (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mambomo: a single source, that isn't even cited, really is not "enough". This has been rejected, and will likely be deleted soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wow how do you guys even operate like Resident Advisor is the Biggest Artist magazine and you guys still don't want it talk about, racism not existing!!!! Mambomo (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mambomo: please do not start hurling baseless accusations around.
This draft was rejected because the RA does not meet any aspect of the WP:GNG standard for notability: it is not secondary, it does not provide significant coverage of the subject, and while it may or may not be reliable it is certainly not independent. And given that both 'references' (which in any case aren't cited in the manner required for articles on living people) are to the same source, this also doesn't satisfy the requirement for multiple sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok you win Mambomo (talk) 07:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check Draft:Asraman Bilig ? What should i do?

Can you check Draft:Asraman Bilig ? What should i do? Nasty32 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no sources, articles are based on reliable, independent sources, NOT on what you know about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nasty32 You should find sources that talk about the subject, and cite them; or abandon the attempt. David10244 (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:38, 20 March 2023 review of draft by Editorranjitksharma


Nocturnal781 has declined my draft article submission saying, "Whole article needs to be formatted and edited all around. Not ready to be on Wikipedia."

Could anybody kindly share some examples of places where the formatting and editing are lacking?

I would like to review my article and make the changes accordingly.

Thanks

Editorranjitksharma (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:13, 20 March 2023 review of draft by 64.114.255.114


Can you help me understand why the citations are not adequate in this case? Was it in regards to the MacRumors article regarding the LegbaCore acquisition being used, rather than e.g. the Gadgets360 citation used over on the Apple M&A page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple#cite_note-g360-legba-114 ?

64.114.255.114 (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:58, 20 March 2023 review of submission by Katehubert

Added a Forbes article as a reference/citation.

Katehubert (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:51:18, 20 March 2023 review of submission by A.marvin87


Hello. How can i improve this page? I think this app is old enough to have his own page on wiki - it has distinct user-friendly features. Sorry if my article looks like advert.

A.marvin87 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:09:21, 20 March 2023 review of draft by Xin505324545


Xin505324545 (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Manager:

Based on your answer, I checked with the President of the International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety (IABMAS), Professor Dan Frangopol, and we modified the draft for International Association for Bridge Maintenance and Safety according to the requirements.

To make the references more in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent, several additional references were added including: [18] indicates that IABMAS 2022 was reported on the website of the European Commission. [20] and [21] show that the Honorary Member Dr. Tang is from T.Y. Lin International, which is a firm also approved by Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Y._Lin_International [24], [25], [26], [27] show the news items about several IABMAS awards recipients by their home organizations, such as City College of New York, Aalto University, T. Y. Lin International, and Hong Kong Polytechnic University. [43] is from Monash University which introduces the proceedings of IABMAS 2018.

We hope the above resources can help IABMAS meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards,

Dr. Jiyu Xin and Prof. Dan M. Frangopol

19:52:57, 20 March 2023 review of submission by Olivierg13

so the guy says that i have a connection to superbestrapper44 but that is litterally me so yes i haev a connection how do i fix that because I shit talk myself a pretty good deal here Olivierg13 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivierg13 start by reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It has instructions on disclosure and other ways to handle the issue. You're definitely gonna need to read and understand that page's contents if you're gonna continue working on your draft.
(Also, "the guy" is me. I put that notice on the draft as well as one on Olivier's talk page.) QuietHere (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:50:45, 20 March 2023 review of draft by KidderCart


Hi there!

I am requesting assistance to identify which sections of the submissions are still considered too promotional. I have tried my best to remove any sections from the submissions that might seem to violate the section, so I'd just like some feedback as to how I can improve the article.

Happy to make the necessary changes. Thanks so much for your time.

KidderCart (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:26:10, 20 March 2023 review of draft by WisnerDM


I received a notice of a speedy deletion. Reasons included conflict of interest and that I'm required to disclose compensation but I'm not being compensated for the submission. It also stated that the article is promotional. I was trying to write within the same style as other artist's pages that are published on Wiki, and am not sure what I need to do to make it read as less promotional. Any suggestions are more than welcomed! WisnerDM (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WisnerDM: the speedy deletion was requested on the basis of the draft being promotional, nothing else. You have already contested this on the draft talk page, so for now there is nothing more to be done but to await administrator's action.
The COI query was made separately, albeit presumably at least partly for the same reason. You should respond to this on your talk page.
Neither of these are AfC matters.
Going forward, whether the current draft is deleted or survives, you need to write in a more neutral, factual tone. Expressions like "songwriting came naturally and easily" may be suitable for an album cover or the artist's website, but not for an encyclopaedia. Similarly, peacocky terms like "legendary" are only really allowed if you're quoting someone of authority, eg. "Shannon as been described as a "legendary songwriter" by the Rolling Stones magazine.[citation needed]"; otherwise it's you inserting your own POV into the text.
And although this wasn't a reason why the draft was declined, I'll mention anyway that you need to ensure that the contents are properly supported by referencing. Currently there are a few paragraphs without any citations, and potentially sensitive and/or contentious claims related to the subject's health etc. need to be very clearly referenced with reliable published sources, per WP:BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your feedback, it really helps! I'm going to go back and put together a better article now that I have an idea of what I need to do. I truly appreciate you taking the time! WisnerDM (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


March 21

00:11:35, 21 March 2023 review of submission by Gaita777

I cannot understand why my contribution was not approved. I did my research and incorporated various references and sources to enhance the quality of the page;however, my contribution was declined. What else should I change to be approved?

Kind regards, Apostolos Gaita777 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gaita777: the referencing is a bit of a mess, to put it mildly; please see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice on how to create inline citations correctly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gaita777 You may also consider creating a page for the player on the Greek Language Wikipedia. (el.wikipedia.org).Naraht (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much 2A02:587:3286:C500:6087:A566:DFD0:365F (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:06:22, 21 March 2023 review of submission by ZkXBotha374


I am a contributor for Samoan and Tongan wikipedia articles. I am creating profiles for Tonga's senior and notable figures of which Sione Ikamafana is one. Tonga is a small third world country and articles are limited. The submissions being declined is disputed. There are far less notable figures of Tongan decent who have been published. I want this to be published so I can move on with updating the Tongan monarchy, Samoan heads of stated and Fijian nobility.

ZkXBotha374 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:50:36, 21 March 2023 review of submission by Olivierg13

Why is it not good enough for wikipedia Olivierg13 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivierg13 because it is completely unsourced and written in an informal tone. Since he has only just begun his career I doubt there is any Reliable sources which discuss the topic in any sort of depth. There is almost no doubt they do not meet any of the criteria within the music criteria. This is an encyclopedia on notable topics not a listing site for anything everywhere. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered any further. You are probably better trying to promote them through social media. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ because that guy is me and that is the reliable source about him i am him and also he is very popular and his career started in 2022 when he sung a album with jayvstheworld and lil fear he rapped the album "oh fuck" which was about girls from college and a diss on lil fear. SO yes his career began earlier and he deserves respect and I have all the inofrmation about him. Thank you mcmatter. Olivierg13 (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivierg13: thank you for confirming that you are indeed the subject of this draft, as has been suspected. Now please read WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why you should not be writing about yourself.
Also, when McMatter points out that there are no reliable sources cited, we mean published and independent secondary sources, as explained in the WP:GNG notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i read it and it says that it is only strongly discouraged and will be edited mercilessly so If there is any bias you can edit it because I talk about myself at a neutral standard for future people to learn about the upcoming souncloud rapper. Thank you and I hope to see my page up soon. Olivierg13 (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivierg13 I see you are blocked, but, writing an autobiography is, as you have read, strongly discouraged. But having independent, published, reliable sources for the information written is an absolute requirement. David10244 (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:02, 21 March 2023 review of submission by Adam Odufuye


Adam Odufuye (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Please i would love to know how to restore the deleted profile so necessary changes can be made[reply]

@Adam Odufuye: you don't specify which of your deleted drafts you refer to, but I think it's fair to say that neither of them will be restored as they were both deleted for being promotional. My advice to you is, stop trying to promote a topic/-s, as that won't get you anywhere, except possibly sanctioned. Time to find something else to write about? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:49:41, 21 March 2023 review of draft by 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:3C:69AD:5DBA:CC3D


I don't understand why my article draft, DKOldies has been declined. Here is the sources i used that are independent of the subject. SVG - 2 times Bloomberg - 1 time Game Rant - 2 times New Altas - 1 time Complex - 1 time Kotaku - 1 time Mashable - 1 time PCMag - 2 times Business Insider - 1 time

If you want me to remove the references from the DKOldies websites, that would be fine. But i believe this is a perfect mixture sources independent from the subject and sources of the subject. If you want me to expand more on the article then i can. 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:3C:69AD:5DBA:CC3D (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dkoldies references on the article are only 3. google maps is one for the source that the Headquarters is in Morgantown. 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:3C:69AD:5DBA:CC3D (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the sources are independent and reliable (and I would argue some of the ones you've cited aren't), that's not enough – the coverage they provide of the subject needs to be also significant in scope and extent; now, all but two of the sources provide passing or no mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've understand. 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:3C:69AD:5DBA:CC3D (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:01, 21 March 2023 review of submission by Toniventure


It's my first time adding the biography of someone on Wikipedia. when I uploaded my draft for review it was not accepted. the reasons were not enough references. I have added more now and would like assistance for approval.

Toniventure (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toniventure: slight correction, this draft wasn't declined for lack of referencing per se, but rather lack of notability demonstrable through referencing. Per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The draft cites no such source, as all the sources are just routine business reporting covering her appointment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction, so how can i infuse the multiple independent and reliable secondary sources? Kindly assist Toniventure (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Toniventure You need to find, and cite, sources that write about her, and about what she has done, and why she is important. David10244 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00:55, 21 March 2023 review of draft by Lomap123El


Lomap123El (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lomap123El: you don't ask a question, but just to say that you've not submitted your draft for review yet... and if you were to, it wouldn't be accepted, as it stands. Please see WP:GNG for information what makes a subject notable, and how to demonstrate that, as well as WP:YFA for advice on how to create an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:11:00, 21 March 2023 review of draft by StaneJurca



I'm sorry, I have my article in Slovenian but it seems that language of text is set to English.

This is my first article and I'm not familiar with Wikipedia article editor. Can you help me changing the language of text to Slovenian, please?


Stane Jurca (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StaneJurca: what do you mean by "changing the language of text to Slovenian"?
Just to clarify, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept articles in English. If you wish to contribute to the Slovenian Wikipedia, you need to go here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:37, 21 March 2023 review of submission by Vishalyadavdbmindia


Someone said that this article looks more like an advertisement i want to know why this looks like an advertisement and what necessary changes i can make to get it approved.

Vishalyadavdbmindia (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Vishalyadavdbmindia/sandbox
@Vishalyadavdbmindia: the draft is littered with peacock words like "significant", "important", "passionate", etc. Furthermore, most of it is unreferenced, suggesting this is you writing to promote the organisation, rather than summarising what independent sources have said about it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:28, 21 March 2023 review of draft by Lisaberm


The reviewer said he was guest star but all his roles are starring roles. Not sure how to reply to him. I've fixed his other suggestions.

Lisaberm (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Lisaberm? The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A criticism the reviewer left for me was that the roles my article actor played were all only Guest Star but that is not true. Most of his roles are Starring roles. How do I remedy this incorrect assumption on the part of the decision maker for accepting my article? Lisaberm (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisaberm: you remedy this by producing evidence to support your case. Although I must say it does very much look like most of them are minor roles, at least in the few films that are notable enough to have their own articles.
That being said, the draft was declined for being inadequately referenced, and failing to demonstrate the subject's notability, not for the importance or otherwise of his roles. Those are the real issues you need to address (and, I might add, haven't yet). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

03:05:12, 22 March 2023 review of submission by Nroosovsky


How are the things he's been apart of relevant and have pages, but he is not relevant when he was an integral part of their success? Nroosovsky (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nroosovsky: "relevance", or lack thereof, isn't why this draft was rejected; notability is. Several reviewers have spent time and effort reviewing the draft, and providing feedback on it – have you read any of it? In any case, now that this draft has been rejected, it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nroosovsky Notability isn't inherited, and it doesn't transfer "sideways". A notable person can write a non-notable book, and a notable book can be written by a non-notable person. What references do you have where others have written about him, in-depth? David10244 (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:42, 22 March 2023 review of draft by AhuraPardazeshIran


AhuraPardazeshIran (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AhuraPardazeshIran: what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:36:28, 22 March 2023 review of draft by BrightUK


Hi, Our Cumnor House School wikipedia pages keep being declined. As both schools are small they have limited secondary sources to use. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on getting an article accepted if they have very limited secondary sources, and how the school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendower_Preparatory_School got accepted with only 1 reference? We have added additional sources to Cumnor House School for Girls and sent this for re-review however these are the only sources they have. BrightUK (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BrightUK: by definition, Wikipedia only summarises what reliable sources have previously published about a subject. Moreover, in order to justify an article, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent sources. From this it follows that if there are no, or not enough, such sources to cite, then it is not possible to create a Wikipedia article. (As for the Glendower article, that was created 15+ years ago when the rules on notability etc. may have been different; it has now been flagged as possibly non-notable. In any case, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of article about the board game Freedom

I have already read the requirements for new Wikipedia before submitting the article, so the generic information didn't help me to understand the concrete reason for the rejection of the stub/draft. In particular, there are uncountably many similar articles, which are deservedly on Wikipedia that are incredibly similar to the proposed draft, see Kruzno_(board_game) as an example. And all of these articles are very valuable to have in Wikipedia, and exactly what I would expect to be in an encyclopedia. I want to add the article about the board game Freedom, because of my work on the page Games played with Go equipment, where I want to add this game. However, it does not yet exist on Wikipedia. It would also be an interesting addition to the List of abstract strategy games and enrich Wikipedia as an encyclopedia as a whole. The cited source is definitely independent and secondary, and I made sure to reformulate everything, so that there is no copy/paste. It is also reliable, because it matches with other checked sources. So please reconsider or advise what exactly needs to happen to get the draft accepted. Arminius4 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised on my talk page, your single source is not reliable as it appears to be user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminius4: this draft was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean you're not allowed to resubmit it) because it fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Notability is shown by citing multiple independent and reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject. The one source cited in this draft meets none of those criteria, and even if it did, it alone wouldn't be enough.
Moreover, that one source is cited only once, near the start of the draft, begging the obvious question –where is the rest of the information coming from? You need to support every material statement with a citation to a reliable source – or put it another way: your article should only be summarising what reliable published sources have said, citing each source against the information they provide.
And finally, there may well be other articles out there which don't meet our notability etc. standards, but that is no reason to create more of them. All new articles must comply with the guidelines and policies as they stand today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminius4: I'm afraid the draft has been tagged as a copyright violation of the source you cited. It is a very close paraphrase of the source text – please follow that link to see why that is not acceptable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is paraphrased; For one, it is difficult to phrase some things very differently in this instance of a very short and concise text (try to say "the car is blue" in different words..). Additionally, some words had to be the same, as these are the officially used terms (e.g. "live" stones). I read the close paraphrase article (that I admit I hadn't seen before).
I can definitely add more citation marks within the text to make it clear that the information is taken from that reference. I can also add [1]as another source - please note, how the cited secondary source (igg) is also just a paraphrase of its primary source.
I do not think, that it should be a problem in this instance, as there are no creative expressions; all statements are facts ("the car is blue", not "the car glowed a soft blue, reminiscent of the azure of the sea."). There is no single sentence copied; only the structure of the article is similar (this is confirmed by the automatic analysis in the report).
A few rephrasings could also just remedy the problem. I do not believe that there is a moral or a legal issue. Especially now that I have found out that there was an apparently very similar Wikipedia article before and that the rules spread in very similar language across multiple sites.
The fact, that a third party web site took the effort to provide rules and implement the game on a game server is a clear indication of notability for me. Arminius4 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was not the use of specific terminology ("live" etc). That is, as you point out, not something that can be changed. It is also sometimes the case that there is only one possible way of phrasing a very short statement of fact, but that is irrelevant here; I can't see the deleted text, but the entire draft was in fact a copy of the source with some noun phrases and verbs replaced by near-synonyms, and a few other very minor changes. I'm afraid that is not acceptable. Plagiarism isn't something that can only happen in a particular register, and has nothing to do with whether the text states a fact or expresses an opinion, nor with how many adjectives there are. Ditto for copyright violations.
If you decide to create another draft about the game, do not try to rewrite a source text. It's very difficult to free oneself from the phrasing of the original text – instead, read the sources carefully, noting down key facts, and then write a draft based on your own keywords, afterwards checking the sources again to see that they are correctly represented. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:13, 22 March 2023 review of submission by Manny Manatee

I am requesting a review, because this person is notable, and everyone keeps saying he is not. He has more than 2 million subscribers on YouTube, and is the most popular Madden/FIFA/2k YouTuber. Manny Manatee (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manny Manatee: he could have 200 million subscribers, and that still wouldn't make him notable, because notability in Wikipedia terms is not measured in follower numbers or other such metrics. What we need to see is significant coverage of him in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, and you've failed to provide those despite several opportunities; this is why the draft was rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Manny Manatee What have others written about him, in-depth, not including interviews? That is what you need. David10244 (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

Request on 11:41:22, 23 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Alexisgaechter


Why my article has been rejecterd? Alexisgaechter (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexisgaechter: because it's bovine excrement. And unreferenced and non-notable bovine excrement, at that. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on12:53:40, 23 March 2023 review of submission by Rukkha1024 for assistance on AfC submission by Rukkha1024



Rukkha1024 (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Rukkha1024? Your 'draft' consists of nothing but a single wikilink, hence why I declined it as a test edit.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:28, 23 March 2023 review of submission by CrunchyPixels


It was denied mainly due to sources, but the sources I picked are nearly the exact same as the Japanese version of the page on Wikipedia. It's also been labeled (from what I can tell) as a conflict of interest. I don't understand what the issues are here.

CrunchyPixels (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CrunchyPixels: each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own policies and requirements. Therefore what may be acceptable on the Japanese Wikipedia, may not be here on the English-language one (or vice versa, although usually the English one has the higher bar for acceptance).
It hasn't been 'labeled as a COI', the reviewer just drew your attention to that, reminding you that if you have a COI with regards to this subject, you need to declare it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:27, 23 March 2023 review of submission by Wikicontributor1993

I was wondering if anyone can review my draft Wikipedia page for The Ocean Foundation and let me know if it looks ok for re-submission. I had submitted it a few months ago and it was declined, but I hopefully addressed these issues and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you so much! :) Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Wikicontributor1993: you're effectively asking us to review your draft now, and that's not how it works, I'm afraid. Submit your draft when you feel you've addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, and a reviewer will pick it up in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to post this on Teahouse! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikicontributor1993 The Teahouse will probably give you the same answer. David10244 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't... they helped a lot actually and were much kinder on that page Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

Request on 06:22:08, 24 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Catboy628


Hello, I had written this article with lots of sources and references but then, it is being declined for many times, this director is awarded in films festivals truly, I DID used the newspaper and many websites from internation films associations to prove it right... I really don't know why it's still not reliable... looks I need to give up writing in wikipedia, I am exhausted and really frustrated... can anyone give me a hand please? 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺 thank you, much appreciated.

Catboy628 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Catboy628: if you read the comments the reviewers have left, they're saying that there is too much unreferenced content: the first three paragraphs and the the infobox don't have a single reliable source (note that IMDb is not reliable, as anyone can edit it) yet they contain private personal details such as DOB which must be clearly supported. It's not enough that you cite some reliable sources in some parts of the draft – in simple terms, everything you write should only ever come from reliable sources, and should be referenced to tell us what those sources are. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi DoubleGrazing,thank you for your advice, but i don't know what else could Catboy628 (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
hi DoubleGrazing,
thank you for your advice, but i don't know what else i could do except giving up, since Catboy628 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Catboy628 The issue is, "where did all of the other information come from", or "how do you know all of that?". Cite where the info came from. David10244 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:53, 24 March 2023 review of submission by Alessandrogribaudo

Hi I'd like to know how to add external links for the italian wikipedia, because the english template for it is not supported on italian wikipedia and how to add sources also on that italian wikipedia

Appreciate

 Courtesy link: Draft:SKLERO (presumably?)

Alessandrogribaudo (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alessandrogribaudo: sorry, I'm not sure I understand... what exactly is it you want to do?
I notice that the draft is in Italian. Just to clarify, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept articles in English. If you're trying to submit to the Italian Wikipedia, you will need to go to https://it.wikipedia.org/ -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:54:44, 24 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Ventura R. Alves


What is the main reason for my page to be delated and can it be fixed ?

Ventura R. Alves (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ventura R. Alves: because there is nothing there, but the title of a paper and an external link; these do not add up to a viable article draft, and could be seen as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What can i do to see my " in risk of deletion page" being published ? can it still be fixed ?

Ventura R. Alves (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with each question, just add to the existing thread.
And please don't put your questions inside the section heading.
Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ventura R. Alves If, as experienced editor DoubleGrazing says, your draft is just a title and a link, then it cannot be published. And it's hardly worth retrieving either. David10244 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:35:19, 24 March 2023 review of draft by Alfa137


My submission was rejected with the only negative comment being, "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I had references for anything I claimed to have done in the way of a publication. It would help me if you could give one example of a citation or footnote that should have been put in. I do not know of any statement I made that would need a footnote. Please help me with one example.

Alfa137 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alfa137: the purpose of references in Wikipedia is to make it possible for the reader to verify the information in the article. A list of references is not a list of a person's publications, but a list of the independent, reliable sources used to support the content in the article. An example of a statement in the draft that has no footnote is "Jerrold Franklin graduated in 1948 from Stuyvesant High School, where he was awarded the algebra award." All information in a Wikipedia article, especially a biography about a living person, should be supported by a citation, although if the same source supports multiple claims that are presented together in the article, there is no need for multiple citation markers.
In addition, adding citation markers manually with square brackets doesn't follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style; you need to add the inline citations in a way that creates footnote links to the reference list, like this:[1] The blue text in the comment you quoted is, as you probably know, clickable links, and if you follow those links you will find more information about the relevant policies, as well as guides to how to insert inline citations in the text. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 18:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Reference text

19:25:12, 24 March 2023 review of submission by 90.255.61.154

Do not reject this draft page. Or decline it. Just accept it. 90.255.61.154 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected. David10244 (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:35:51, 24 March 2023 review of submission by Twodonotsimply

I submitted this article and it was marked as being 'under review' about 11 days ago. The banner at the top of the page says to contact the live chat for help if it has not been reviewed within 12 hours which I did and I was redirected here. Just wondering what's going on with why it's the review still hasn't finished yet. Thanks! Twodonotsimply (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Robert McClenon who marked it as under review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

Request on 06:46:28, 25 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Faran315


I am trying to add an article for a local social club that has historic significance. Multiple references have beeen provided but have failed to get the article approved. This is a venue that has city wide significance. Hence, the references available are also local and average sized websites. Please advise best course of action.

Faran 06:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Faran315: for notability, we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources; this draft cites no such source. Also, too much of the content is unreferenced, and has been tagged as such, yet you have resubmitted without addressing the matter. Accordingly, I have had to decline this again, and I should warn you that if the issues highlighted aren't rectified, this is starting to run the risk of outright rejection. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I will rework the language and try to find more reliable sources.
Thanks for your help. Faran 07:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faran315 (talk • contribs)
PS: And don't copypaste from external sources; the entire 'History' section was lifted off the club's website which is under copyright. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:33, 25 March 2023 review of submission by Its-unused

red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning:This page was rejected.

/

comment

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1146563050"