Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
Talk — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Helper script		Help
desk		Backlog
drives
Shortcuts
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


March 24[edit]

Request on 01:45:16, 24 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Christopher Cottle[edit]



Christopher Cottle (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:40:01, 24 March 2022 review of submission by Greentechnik[edit]

This project page includes references from Google, Google Books and Google Knowledge Panel. Recommended for approval in Wikipedia. Greentechnik (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are appropriate sources. A Google knowledge panel is not a source itself, but a collection of sources. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:10:15, 24 March 2022 review of draft by Sigridsgatan[edit]


Sigridsgatan (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My submission was rejected on this ground: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." I am uncertain how to handle this. I believe that the correct references have been added to all factual quotes, such an memberships in the American and Swedish academies, as well as PMID links to the publications listed. I would appreciate if you could give me a more specific hint of what in the text in not supported by "a reliable source".

@Sigridsgatan: I'm afraid there is a more immediate problem with the draft: it looks like you copied Draft:Anders Björklund and pasted it into a new draft, with an incorrect spelling of his surname, and then added a few sources to that. This is a problem for reasons explained here, and also because the article should have the correct spelling of his last name. Perhaps you thought that you would not be allowed to edit a draft created by someone else, but that is not a problem. The draft you copied had been declined a couple of times; adding the sources you provided for the "Bjorklund" draft to the "Björklund" one would be a good first step. Please also read this guideline regarding conflict-of-interest editing, and disclose any connection you have to Björklund, as explained there. --bonadea contributions talk 15:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply.I understand that copying from the earlier rejected draft is a problem.I was under the impression that, since the earlier draft was rejected, I could not continue to edit it further, and thus went on to make a new submission. Easiest for me would be if the earlier rejected (Björklund) draft is deleted and removed, and that the new (Bjorklund) submission, which uses parts of the text in the rejected submission, was given the name with the correct Swedish spelling "Björklund". Is this possible? Otherwise, the "Bjorklund" text does not contain any controversial statements, and all specific quoted facts are supported by links to public sources. The correctness of Björklund´s bio-data given here is supported by the link to the Lund University web site, where a complete CV also is available. I am at loss to see what other sources could be added. Your view on this would be appreciated! Sigridsgatan (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigridsgatan Please edit this existing section for additional comment, instead of creating new sections. I've moved your comment here. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:48:06, 24 March 2022 review of submission by Likhari12[edit]

Hey my name is PARAM BHATTAL and I am a writer I write my own songs and I upload them on Instagram and YouTube. I want you to publish my profile on Wikipedia so that people can know about me and i can give my songs to the intrsuted ones. Likhari12 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likhari12 You have confused Wikipedia with social media; Wikipedia is not social media, but an encyclopedia. Wikipedia has no profiles, not a single one. We have articles. We have no interest in helping you promote yourself. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:30:23, 24 March 2022 review of draft by Publiconline123[edit]


Confused about article submission.I tried my best.Now i want help on submitting the article.I need help on fixing article Publiconline123 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:50:38, 24 March 2022 review of submission by JanPawel2025[edit]

Please review my draft. I believe that many words in the article are enough.

JanPawel2025, You have proved existence, but existence is not notability. Need more than just routine announcements of its creation. Are there reliable secondary sources discussing the subject? See this guide for some pointers.Slywriter (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the page about the Polish Cyberspace Defense Forces. JanPawel2025 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 25[edit]

00:16:04, 25 March 2022 review of submission by GenesisGSE[edit]

review of submission by GenesisGSE

Below this line, tell us why you are requesting a re-review. Take as many lines as you need.-->}} {Lafc|username=GenesisGSE|ts=00:16:04, 25 March 2022|link= }} GenesisGSE (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:56:50, 25 March 2022 review of submission by Imcdc[edit]

This article wass created before by other users and deleted because it seemed to much like advertising. I have created a new version of it which is pretty much based on just factual contents of it. What can be done to make this seem like a company article rather than a promotional tone? Imcdc (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

02:43:51, 25 March 2022 review of draft by 97.119.210.101[edit]


Waiting for the draft to be deleted. 97.119.210.101 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:23:57, 25 March 2022 review of submission by Ilieșu Petru[edit]


I have tried to upload on the Wikipedia the draft of a CV belonging to a Romanian poet and civic activist (Petru Ilieșu) I also have many references that can sustain the information from CV. Please tell me what kind of information do I need in order to provide a reliable article (respecting the criteria of obiectivity required by Wikipedia) Thank you very much!

See references, below the line:

http://levurelitteraire.com/marcel-cornis-pope-author-translator-editor-and-academician/ ”Romania Post Scriptum” https://diazilla.com/doc/997569/libretto-petru-trilingue---rotary-eklubo-esperanto https://www.biblioteche.comune.parma.it/alpi/it-it/scrivere-poesia-a-timisoara.aspx https://dusic.unipr.it/it/notizie/26-settembre-2019-petru-iliesu-parlera-di-romania-e-europa https://www.amazon.it/Iliesu-Romania-rivoluzione-Quattro-momenti/dp/8832158124 https://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A21734/pdf/October 2014Journal of Literary Studies https://www.erstestiftung.org/en/publications/return-to-europe-a-ten-part-documentary/ http://www.uniuneascriitorilortm.ro/content/ilie%C5%9Fu- https://www.buecher.de/shop/gedichte/rumaenien-postskriptum-romnia-post-scriptum-/iliesu-petru/products_products/detail/prod_id/60560025/ https://shop.falter.at/detail/9783863563158 https://videovest.ro/proiecte/ https://adz.ro/meinung-und-bericht/artikel-meinung-und-bericht/artikel/die-anonymen-menschen-sind-die-wahren-helden https://www.rri.ro/it_it/giornata_europea_delle_lingue_2019_rivoluzione_89_incontro_all_universita_di_parma-2604649 https://books.google.ro/books?id=CVPPGw_ZyO0C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Petru+Ilie%C8%99u&source=bl&ots=ux36-CyK2U&sig=ACfU3U0B03-3Da4jOunIOqwAzL0roJjgDw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEn-Tw4ezvAhXOl4sKHcKpD4Y4ZBDoATAFegQIBxAD#v=onepage&q=Petru%20Ilie%C8%99u&f=false https://books.google.ro/books?id=MhKxDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=Petru+Ilie%C8%99u&source=bl&ots=fMgkVbVtt-&sig=ACfU3U2c7FiYyqv_lU_4YTRc7V4ki2AMaw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEn-Tw4ezvAhXOl4sKHcKpD4Y4ZBDoATAJegQICBAD#v=onepage&q=Petru%20Ilie%C8%99u&f=false https://www.observatorcultural.ro/articol/nonconformistul-petru-iliesu-2/ https://www.lovelybooks.de/autor/Petru-Ilie%C5%9Fu/ https://romanialibera.ro/cultura/arte/destinul-poetului-disident-petru-iliesu--80767 https://books.google.ro/books?id=j2PmEIYMsHUC&pg=PA618&lpg=PA618&dq=Petru+Ilie%C8%99u+Return+to+Europa&source=bl&ots=maZkPWeZlZ&sig=ACfU3U3wsTW3GMRar9WBFzmxtMlDzm3Y7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivyP3q5ezvAhVHEncKHaXKD9c4MhDoATAJegQIBhAD#v=onepage&q=Petru%20Ilie%C8%99u%20Return%20to%20Europa&f=false


Ilieșu Petru (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilieșu Petru: We don't host cirricula vitae in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10:35:41, 25 March 2022 review of draft by Kateryna mayer[edit]


Hi, I want to confirm that the 'reliable souces' issue in my article means that I have too many references to the IT Guild news web pages and their Social-channels news references as a confirmation of my statements? if yes, can I use them in cases when I want to describe a point of view of IT-Guild or its official reaction to some events in the past? In this case, I will be describing its reaction\opinion and I do not show it as a 'truthful statement' Also, will the removal of such kinds of references and adding some other external "news" articles will help to solve the problem? will this approach work? Regards, Kateryna mayer (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources to establish notability cannot come from the subject itself. A Wikipedia article about an organization must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested much in what an organization says about itself. 331dot (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:44, 25 March 2022 review of submission by Jorge Granier Phelps[edit]


We already added more sources that mention our company, our journalists and the Media outlet itself. We also linked other wikipedia articles related to our journalists and founders.

Please verify these changes and let us publish El American Wikipedia Page. Thanks in advance.

All the best.

Jorge Granier Phelps (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, it will not be considered further, Wikipedia has zero interest in promoting your company. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:57:17, 25 March 2022 review of submission by Nikkimar[edit]


I NEED HELP! Trying to get a biography published for a living entrepreneur.

Nikkimar (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, Wikipedia summarises what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Your draft doesn't even begin to suggest any notability whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:59:28, 25 March 2022 review of submission by JanPawel2025[edit]

Please see the page on Polish Cyberspace Defense Forces. JanPawel2025 (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JanPawel2025, First stick to one thread. No need to create another today. Second, all you did was add more sources covering the creation. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON if no other coverage is available. Third, thousands of articles are pending in the queue and posting here will not get it reviewed quicker.Slywriter (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:16:28, 25 March 2022 review of submission by 41.138.72.11[edit]


41.138.72.11 (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is far too detailed and has too few sources. We're a general encyclopaedia, not Fandom. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 26[edit]

00:10:34, 26 March 2022 review of submission by Marjoram48[edit]

What Wikiproject classification tags should I put in? Marjoram48 (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marjoram48. You are not required to add any WikiProject tags to a draft. If User:Marjoram48/sandbox will be a biography of a historical figure, a woman in Australia, then WikiProjects Biography, Women's History, and Australia might be appropriate. There's little point in adding WikiProjects, however, until you've made a solid start on the draft. You may find Help:Your first article useful. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:04, 26 March 2022 review of submission by Phoebae[edit]


Hello there, I'm a newbie here. So, could someone review my draft and point out mistakes?

Phoebae (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phoebae: The lists in the article need to be removed, especially the investors list. Refer to the top table here:
As this article potentially falls into a topic area under sanctions, this is all I will say on this matter, beyond dropping a sanctions alert on your talkpage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:16:23, 26 March 2022 review of submission by 張民耀[edit]


張民耀 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)I mean, some people love Roblox games and they want information about the game. Why not post some information about the games in Wikipedia?[reply]

@張民耀: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… 張民耀 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are zero reliable sources online about the game, I doubt many people actually do want information about the game. Bsoyka (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily harsh reactions, including the phrases "zero reliable sources online", and particularly "no debate". I agree that there's insufficient notability, but in the Roblox metaverse this is a big deal. With a little bit of effort, you reactors could have found Roblox#Games, and from there List of Roblox games#Piggy, and then suggested to the editor to improve the latter section instead. At the Bloxy Awards, it has been nominated for both "Game of the Year" and "Best New Game" (source at Billboard), in the context of the metaverse has been on many best game lists (e.g. [1] at VG247, [2] at Screen Rant, [3] at Rock Paper Shotgun), been described as "one of the best scary horror games" (source at Radio Times). It is extremely popular: "one of the most popular games" ([4] at New York Post), one of the "popular games" ([5] at The Daily Telegraph), "now has over 5 billion plays" ([6] at TechCrunch), "played more than 6.5 billion times" ([7] at The Irish Times). --77.162.8.57 (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:04, 26 March 2022 review of submission by Reayl name[edit]


Reayl name (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but two words that have no sources will never be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Please read more about what Wikipedia is, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a slam-dunk no-content or no-context speedy deletion if it were in article space. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:08:25, 26 March 2022 review of draft by Shayaccount[edit]


Shayaccount (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can online store selling a book related to the article be accepted as reference links? I am writing about a author of a book.


Also! How do I insert picture (s) of the author, in visual editing mode?

In order:
  • No. Online storefronts are only useful insofar as they provide a release date; the publisher is going to be a far more reliable source for this nine times out of ten.
  • Images don't help a draft what-so-ever, and we would need a freely-licensed image, not one you pulled off of Google Image Search.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shayaccount: As to your actual sources, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Absolutely none of the sources you cite are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I insert an author's photo for a biography? YouTube videos show a simple search made in Template. However all videos predate an obvious setup change. There is no search bar in template, only already used private templates. Please help!

As I said above, images do not help a draft what-so-ever, and we don't accept fair-use images of living people. Please reply in this existing section instead of making a new one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:07:52, 26 March 2022 review of submission by TomahF[edit]


I have spent a considerable amount of time preparing this timeline and believe it will be of interest to mechanical engineers. Drafts have been reviewed several times and I have addressed the various issues. The current version is much improved as a result.

The latest response that "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," does not seem valid. Wikipedia currently costs numerous timelines, some of which are quite similar to the one I am proposing. For example, see the numerous examples available at List_of_timelines (List of timelines).

I serve on the history and heritage committee of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and I know that committee is very interested in seeing this effort go forward. We wish to use the Wikipedia space to allow others to add to the listing, as well as for the listing to be available for research and other uses.

Please let me know how we can move this effort forward.

Sincerely, TomahF (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Tom Fehring, P.E. Member, ASME History and Heritage Committee[reply]


TomahF (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TomahF Rejection means that resubmission is not possible, at least in the short term. I apologize greatly for being frank, but Wikipedia has no interest in the goals of other organizations like your society(please review conflict of interest) with regards to Wikipedia content. Much of the draft appears to be a copyright violation, which is an instant fail. Something being an "innovation" is an opinion and not an appropriate title for an encyclopedia article which should have a neutral point of view. Who views it as innovative?(rhetorical question) We're interested in what independent reliable sources say, not just the opinion of one organization. Please see other stuff exists; other poor articles existing does not mean that more can be added. We just haven't gotten around to addressing them yet. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First: I do not believe any of the items in the draft represent a copyright violation. Of the over 1,000 items cited in the timeline, an earlier draft had included two or three items that used language directly from other sources. I found those errors and cleaned them up.
Second: There are numerous references that reveal that these items reflect true innovation, if you will look through the draft--all from independent reliable sources.
Third: This effort in no way reflects a conflict of interest. It is not meant to reflect only the interest of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Rather it is directed at anyone interested in the history of technology. TomahF (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 27[edit]

05:58:46, 27 March 2022 review of submission by Anthonypontek[edit]


Anthonypontek (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:48, 27 March 2022 review of submission by Anthonypontek[edit]

06:11:48, 27 March 2022 review of submission by Anthonypontek

Because I did not meet the requirements of Wikipedia.

Anthonypontek (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonypontek: No sources, no article, no debate. We're also not interested in what you have to say about yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:34:14, 27 March 2022 review of submission by Ayubsaifi6767[edit]


Ayubsaifi6767 (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:05:57, 27 March 2022 review of draft by Loveneetsingh123[edit]


This is regarding declined draft of Advocate General anmol rattan sidhu. Reason - Large section of content unsourced

We will surely work on that. One thing I would like to bring to attention here that we did added number of references but many of those were infact deleted by other moderators as they were used to source info added in content.

Please guides what kind of references we can add further to source the info added in content. And how much should we add. we have 100s of those as the person in question is AG of Punjab government and hold very high position in government. Im his legal advisor to Punjab government and we can furnish government proofs as well in form of documents to proove that this is fully authentic and genuine request of page creation. Please let us know whom and where should we submit those documents to support our case.

Please suggest that, Do you mean references like related to his schooling, or legal positions held in the past ? need to be sourced too with references? Is it something that we should add so that the article is accepted. We added references for his current position as Advocate general in punjab government only . I would be very thankful for your help and guidence. Loveneetsingh123 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loveneetsingh123: We're looking for sources that are in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles with identifiable authors that are published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts. Government documents do not fit that description. And literally every biographical claim that could be challenged MUST be cited to a source with the characteristics I detailed above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quick response Jeske. I editeds the draft and added independent news articles as well as web sources that cite the facts mentioned in the content mentioned in the articles. Morover all the refernces cited and added are genuine and well established BIG MEDIA OUTLETS in India. Please let me know should i resubmit draft now for consideration or should i wait a bit. Loveneetsingh123 (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also another point i would like to add that references i added fully comply with the wikipedia reliable sources guidelines and are not any kind of self opinionated ur user generated content in any way. In fact they are official references / websites that prooves that the content source is fully authentic and true in nature as mentioned. What more authenticity required could be possible above that :) Loveneetsingh123 (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Loveneetsingh123: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode.
For your sources...
For your article text...
  • As an experianced lawyer, He has played an instrumental role in assisting the courts in deciding important questions of law in various fields, thus contributing to the development of legal jurisprudence.[sic] - Promotional as written, if kept it requires sources and a re-write.
  • He has lectured extensively on various legal topics at different prestigious institutions and has also been frequently invited by universities, professional institutes, etc. to lecture on various areas of legal practice. - " " ", " " " " " " " "-".
  • He had the opportunity to travel to various parts of the world to learn about new cultures, legal and political systems.[...] - Eighty-six this entire paragraph; it's promotional.
  • ...he had organized the first-ever International Legal Conference in Chandigarh on September 29, 2003. - Source?
  • In the International Legal Conference, eleven countries attended, which was inaugurated by the President of India Dr APJ Abdul Kalam.[sic] - Irrelevant.
  • Anmol Rattan Sidhu was Born on May 1, 1958 (Labour Day) in a family of a farmer...[sic] - Source for the birth date?
  • ... he studied Primary education in the village school, Dabwali (now Mandi Dabwali) before shifting to Chandigarh in 1975 and enrolling at Government College, Sector-11. - Source?
  • He has one son (MR. SUVIR SIDHU, ADVOCATE) who is also an advocate and senior member of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh.[sic] - Irrelevant.
  • He remained a sociopolitical student having held posts of President Students Union of Government College Sector 11, Chandigarh in 1978-79.[sic] - Source?
  • Later on he remained Additional Advocate General (Punjab & Haryana) handling various pivotal state matters. - Promotional as written and requires a source besides.
  • From 1997 onwards, Sidhu was elected as a Member of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for five consecutive terms, before being elevated as chairman of the apex regulating body of lawyers in 2001-02. Promotional as written and requires sources for the consecutive terms and elevation to chairman. Note that this does not qualify him for WP:NPOL.
  • He remained a member of the Academic Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh till 1982-84. - Source?
  • A member of Advisory Committee, Chandigarh 1992 to 94.[sic] - This is a sentence fragment.
  • While practicing in the high court, he remained the president of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association eight times, the first person to be elected this many times in any High Court in the country. - Source?
  • Remained an elected member of Senate and Syndicate for a continuous period from 1990 onwards (12 years).[sic] - This is a sentence fragment and requires a source.
  • A Committee member on Development of 3rd Phase of Chandigarh from 1992-94.[sic] - " " " " " " " " ".
  • Later, he was elected as a Chairman of the Construction/Building Committee at Law Bhawan of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh from 2002-2005. - Source?
  • He was designated as a Senior Advocate in 2007 and later served as the Assistant Solicitor General of India in the year 2008 till 2014. - Source?
  • Remained as a special public prosecutor for the CBI in the Punjab and Haryana High Court during this tenure.[sic] - This is a sentence fragment and requires a source.
  • He was also awarded PARMAN PATRA by the Punjab Government in 2004 (the highest award given to a Civilian of the State in recognition of his services to the society). - Source?
Your sources are all crap and the article is a promotional, unsourced mess. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 08:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback Jeske I will make sure the improvements you suggested are taken care of and will work on them. Loveneetsingh123 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also
eg as you mentioned
He remained a member of the Academic Council, Panjab University, Chandigarh till 1982-84 source required
A member of Advisory Committee, Chandigarh 1992 to 94.source required
Remained an elected member of Senate and Syndicate for a continuous period from 1990 onwards (12 years).source required
All of the above positions he held are all clearly mentioned on the official punjab government website i.e https://advocategeneral.punjab.gov.in/?q=profile-ag so thats the only source that verifies that these facts are correct,. how can i add same reference again and again to verify facts. Iam wondering how to substantiate these line by line.
Also you mentioned https://advocategeneral.punjab.gov.in/?q=profile-ag is useless for notability. Please i couldnot understand how it can be useless since its official government and he is the position holder of highest gov position in Punjab right now. This is the top most credible, authentic and highly authoritative source. There could not be any other reference thats more credible than this. Its like USA.gov of america website, but at state level :) I crosschecked many other similar bio pages of even persons who are less authoritative than an Advocate general and even those pages doesnt provide such kind of highly credible sources.
But anyways i will work on other suggestions you mentioned. Loveneetsingh123 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate General's website is useless for notability because it is a government source, and thus a primary source. Primary sources do not help for notability a whit, and thus cannot be used to source claims that could reasonably be challenged. And "Other articles on similar topics don't cite this sort of thing" is a nonstarter; odds are those articles need edited - likely very heavily - themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:32:04, 27 March 2022 review of draft by 74ox[edit]


Mohamed Abbas (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:19:42, 27 March 2022 review of submission by BlossomRoses[edit]


BlossomRoses (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, made this article months ago and I personally think that LuckyDesigns deserves an article of his own. Did some few changes to the references and added some new words. So if anyone wants to check it then yeah.

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:10:14, 27 March 2022 review of draft by 84.15.188.117[edit]


Dear Wikipedia, My Wikipedia page Submission about Eduard Grossman has been declined. I provided References at the bottom of the page and uploaded documents that prove the information that i wrote is real. I would like to know specifically what information is not adequately supported by reliable sources.

Thank you looking forward to your reply

Alexander Kalganov

84.15.188.117 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are still large unsourced sections of the draft. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the three book sources, which I'd assume just comment the subjects name, the other sources don't seem very reliable - what exactly are these? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:48, 27 March 2022 review of submission by Jaykey21[edit]

Can you tell me what is needed to get the page approved. I have other references if needed can you tell me is there a number of references needed? Jaykey21 (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jaykey21, See WP:NCORP for guideline to articles about corporations. this guide may also be useful. Finally please see WP:COI and WP:PAID if you have any connections to the company. In short, existence is not notability and wikipedia needs independent secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:21, 27 March 2022 review of draft by Dragonflymagnet[edit]


I need a quick review for newly submitted page "Steve Zipperman for Arizona LD1". This page is time sensitive to our primary election on Aug. 2, 2022.

Thanks!

The Dragonfly Magnet aka: Kimberly Martin

Dragonflymagnet (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted a blank sandbox User:Dragonflymagnet/sandbox? Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you meant to submit Draft:Steve Zipperman for Arizona LD1 then be advised that it would be rejected with no sources. Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have request speedy deletion of as Wikipedia is not for publishing a campaign ad. Also as you are connected with the candidate or campaign, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. If he is notable on his own, he may merit a wikipedia article, but you will need to make proper disclosures, include references and understand that once a page is published, no one has control or ownership of it.Slywriter (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:38:58, 27 March 2022 review of submission by DCLawwyer[edit]

{{Lafc|username=DCLawwyer|ts=19:38:58, 27 March 2022|page= Theo Alcántara


Dear Teahouse:

User:Numberguy6 declined Draft:Theo_Alcántara The reason was "Written like a résumé/CV." with a referral to 'What Wikipedia is not'

1. There is no rule in 'What Wikipedia is not' that supports "résumé/CV" as a ground for refusal. Is it possible that the rejection is due to a personal preference that exists in no written rule?

2. The closest item in What Wikipedia is not is "Wikipedia is not a means of promotion." Promotion is about the future, and uses comparative adjectives about the subject of promotion. Biography is about the past. The article is just historical facts, with no compariative adjectives about Mr. Alcantra. Historical facts are not "promotion." Or rather, any definition of the word "promotion" that embraces a catalog of the notable historical accomplishments of a person is not a useful definition of "promotion" and conflicts with the requirement of "notability."

3. Whatever standard NumberGuy6 applied, is it being applied in a rational, context-sensitive way? Mr Alcántara is an orchestra/opera conductor. For most musicians, life is a series of one-night gigs, hoping to get lucky and land one of the few permanent appointments. A 35-year career of permanent appointments is a real rarity! It's that series of appointments and one-night gigs that makes Mr Alcántara notable, and that any reader of this article cares about.

4. This is standard biographical form for a musician. For example, the information in Henri Sigfridsson is the same in character -- prizes, performances, etc. The only real difference is that Mr Alcantara has retired after a long career, while Mr Sigfridsson is young, so his article is shorter. Back in the days of print, Nicolas Slonimsky's Baker's_Biographical_Dictionary_of_Musicians was the standard biographical compilation. Its entry for Mr Alcántara is here [8] If that's the standard biographical entry form for the standard biographical compilation of musicians, why would it be inappropriate for Wikipedia?

5. An uninformative rejection is not helpful. How would one fix the article, if there's nothing in 'What Wikipedia is not' that directly applies? What does one do next? (And I suspect that if you thought about what to do next, you'd convince yourself that there is no notable "next step" except to accept the article.)

Thank you

DCLawwyer (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCLawwyer (talk • contribs) 19:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DCLawwyer: In order:
  1. WP:RESUME, while an essay, both explains why we don't accept cirricula vitae and provides links to the various policies that preclude writing them on Wikipedia. We also have zero tolerance for malicious compliance or pettifogging.
  2. Have you never heard of revisionism? It's very much possible to be promotional about events in the past - look at any random Eastern European, Balkans, Armenian, Azerbaijani, or Israel/Palestine article (and their related sanctions to kerb the nationalistic revisionism). Saying that an article can't be promotional or non-neutral because it's about events in the past assumes facts not in evidence and is at best sophistic.
  3. Do not presume what Wikipedia's audience - the lay person - cares about. If a claim is unsourced, they'll only care insofar as to complain about it being unsourced. As for context-sensitivity, as far as I am aware we do not have a specific notability guideline for orchestral conductors, so "context-sensitive" is an impossibility - there's simply no alternate standard to apply.
  4. As explained above, conductors and musicians do not use the same notability criteria (again, conductors do not have a specific notability guideline), so the criteria for musicians cannot be applied here. You would need to prove he meets the musician notability criteria without relying at all on his career as a conductor.
  5. You might be able to see an answer if you weren't so focused on pounding the table. But since you requested it: Your article needs to be an encyclopaedia article, not an unconnected series of lists that is effectively a cirriculum vitae. If you can't figure out how to write an encyclopaedia article, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. The fact I need to spell this out explicitly hints that you're not after help, you're after an answer you want. We will not mortgage our standards for the sake of your ego. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Jéské Couriano
Now I'm even more confused.
1. WP:RESUME admonishes to not post your own resume. That's irrelevant here, isn't it.
2. Yes, of course I've heard of revisionism. That's irrelevant here too, isn't it.
3. Jéské Couriano writes "If a claim is unsourced...." That isn't relevant here, is it. I footnoted essentially every single fact.
4. "You would need to prove he meets the musician notability criteria without relying at all on his career as a conductor." Where is that in a written Wikirule? I doubt that it exists, because it would be irrational to exclude the very subject matter that makes a person notable.
Before you question whether I can write an article, you might want to take a look at my other contributions.
If anything comes clear from my edit history and this article, I'm making good faith effort to contribute where I have genuine expertise, and a good faith effort to follow the rules as they're written. I'm making a good faith effort to honestly engage in this conversation on a rational basis based on the rules s they're written, without injecting irrelevancies. May I ask the same from you, Jéské Couriano (and any other reviewer that participates)?
Theroadislong gave me a useful comment based on an ascertainable principle, and I have revised accordingly.
DCLawwyer (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a single source is actually useable to establish notability. Discogs is not a reliable source. The three symphony articles are primary sources and only prove existence, same for Ann arbor. thebiogrpahy.us is 404. Eusko appears to allow anyone to submit. All that leaves is encyclopedia.com which is unclear on its sourcing. In short, besides not being written in an encyclopedic tone, notability is not established per WP:GNG and WP:N. It would be best to identify WP:THREE independent secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:29, 27 March 2022 review of submission by 42.201.140.50[edit]


42.201.140.50 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

04:20:20, 28 March 2022 review of submission by TandinPeday[edit]

I have tried to submit this article since last year. It keeps telling me to site sources, which i did. But some of the sources have to be cited from our own website as information has been collected by our team. What should i do to help this article get published? TandinPeday (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:06:07, 28 March 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:1067[edit]


How come KMN doesn’t have its own page? 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:1067 (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because every single source basically uses Kale My Name as a prop and isn't actual coverage of the company, and none of the edits since I've last seen this draft have addressed that problem at all - if anything, they've only exacerbated it by including unsourced claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some concerted effort to get this establishment on Wikipedia? This comes up every so often(and it's not easy to find a draft unless people know where to look). 331dot (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be two-faced if the company hired a PR firm or contractors off a headhunting site to try and get a Wikipedia article up, but whether that is actually the case or not I'll leave to the philosophers. There's also an aspect of misdirected racial justice here, too; look at the archived discussion I linked above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:19:24, 28 March 2022 review of submission by Banasbank1959[edit]


Banasbank1959 (talk) 11:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Reviewer,

Please share what's wrong in our article , So we can change and update it


-- Best Regards The Banaskantha District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd

As you were told, it was blatant advertising. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:28:33, 28 March 2022 review of submission by Euaanmill[edit]


Hello

Regarding notability, in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music), in the section "Criteria for musicians and ensembles", it states that:

"Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria."

It then subsequently lists a series of criteria, and states that the claim to notability must be "properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials."

Of these criteria, the following are true of the subject of this draft Wikipedia article:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

We have backed up, through multiple revisions of the article over the period of more than a year, in line with [note 1] under the above criterion, the coverage with specific examples of independent, published articles referring to the music duo covered by this proposed Wikipedia article from reliable sources such as major, reputable UK newspapers and radio/televisual sources none of which are blacklisted in Wikipedia's list of deprecated sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

These are the stated reasons for rejection under point 1 above, NONE of which are true in the case of this draft article: "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases."

And:

"2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart."

This has been shown, with reference to the UK's officially recognised national music chart compiled by the Official Charts Company, as listed by Wikipedia, as published on 25 December 2020.

We are therefore needing advice on what exactly your editors remain sceptical about, as we are totally confident that the subject of this draft article does fulfill the criteria to merit such an entry.

Thankyou in advance.

Euaanmill

Euaanmill (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use, please also disclose any conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:16:01, 28 March 2022 review of submission by 2.136.247.119[edit]


2.136.247.119 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC) My new entry for 'Yacht Agent' has twice been declined on the basis that the topic/subject is covered by 'Yacht Broker'.[reply]

It fundamentally is not. We are a consignee, port agent and superyacht agent; no element of our business crosses over with brokers in our industry. Yes, both are concerned with yachts, but we are government licensed and authorised to represent vessels to port authorities. Brokers do nothing of the kind.

By all means, ask for more details, query the submission, or request further explanation of how our segment differs from brokers' activity. Per example, we belong to a global association of yacht agencies, AYSS, to which not a single yacht brokerage belongs. Most yacht brokers belong to associations 'LYBRA', 'MYBA', 'YBAA', 'IYBA' and 'APSA', to which yacht agents *can not* belong.

Happy to expand further, but please, do not dismiss the submission on grounds of duplication.

Thanks & regards, James van Bregt

Who is "our"? If you are writing about your field of business, please review conflict of interest. It might help if the draft was less of a mere documentation of this profession, and it instead summarized what independent reliable sources state about this profession. I'm not sure that I disagree with the last reviewer as these professions seem close enough that they could be mentioned on the same article; just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:28:45, 28 March 2022 review of submission by ChiserYT[edit]


ADHD and i hate speedy accusations of bs ChiserYT (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it not worthy of an aticle. i've seen far shorter and less informative article about lesser topics. This is a defunct company that i've spent hours researching. This deserves notability. --ADHD and i hate speedy accusations of bs ChiserYT (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChiserYT Please read other stuff exists. That other poor articles exist does not mean more can be added. We simply have not addressed them yet. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We can only address what we know about.
Regarding your draft, the sources you have offered do not have significant coverage of this business. Not everything that is old and defunct merits an article. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:56:33, 28 March 2022 review of draft by Alex42[edit]


Hello everyone.

The corporation Draft:Adevinta is relatively unknown, since only founded 3 years ago, but with a turnover of 1.66 billion US dollars not exactly small. According to Financial Times it is the largest owner of online classifieds portals. (First reference in the article.)

Does the article have sufficient and significant coverage, or is this company to small to meet notability guidelines?

--Alex42 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:03:03, 28 March 2022 review of draft by Wsrdevices[edit]


Wsrdevices (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wsrdevices You don't ask a question, but you just submitted some text which had no reliable sources to support it and was not really structured as an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. I might suggest that you spend some time editing existing articles first, before attempting to create one yourself- which is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:49:21, 28 March 2022 review of draft by 98.151.219.183[edit]


I do not understand why my resubmission was rejected.

Please compare my resubmission with the Wikipedia entries for our two sister conferences, the Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) and the Research in Computational Biology (RECOMB). I *very* closely modelled my resubmission on their entries. Are you saying that these two existing Wikipedia entries, if they were submitted today, would be rejected?

All three conferences (ISMB, RECOMB, WABI) are over 20 years old, all three cover the same general area, all three Wiki entries (the two existing ones and my resubmission) are mostly about history, structure, and current people in charge, and all three feature a list of past meetings with their proceedings -- and these past meetings and their proceedings comprise 90% of the references in all three entries. There is no advertising (these are non-profit academic conferences), just facts -- the kind of information that researchers look for when checking out a research meeting. I have run that resubmission by a number of my colleagues in Europe and the US and received only positive feedback about content and completeness.

If your objection is triggered by my use of the word "success" (it appears twice in the entry), let me know -- I used it to explain why the meeting went from a one-time event in 2001 to a yearly event and again from being always in Europe to alternating between Europe and the US, but I can easily remove it.

98.151.219.183 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the independent sources? We don't care what a subject has to say about itself. And honestly, at least one if not both of the other articles could be subject to a deletion discussion as it lacks secondary sourcing. Regardless WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an argument for inclusion. Please find WP:THREE independent secondary sources to establish notability. Additionally, as you said "our", please read and comply with WP:COI and/or WP:PAID as applicable.Slywriter (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment, about references. Except for the wabi-conference.org web page, none of the references cited was produced by the submitter (as alleged in the rejection) -- the proceedings references are to the sites of academic publishers, the links to past meetings and the next meeting are to web sites set up by the respective meeting organizers (who are not associated with WABI), the links to the founders are to entries created by the Association for Computing Machinery for its senior members, etc. Again, exactly the same is true for Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) and for Research in Computational Biology (RECOMB). I kept the text of the references very short (just WABI 2xxx), whereas the ISMB entry uses very long descriptions (Proceedings of the...) in more standard academic style, but the references are to the same material. So the complaint about citations is simply wrong -- perhaps the reviewer was not familiar with the academic world? Again, please look at the wiki entries for ISMB and RECOMB and compare. If these two entries were good enough for acceptance, so is my resubmission.

98.151.219.183 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See above for answer.Slywriter (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 29[edit]

Request on 03:00:24, 29 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Miragemaye[edit]


Helllo I got my article rejected but I do not understand why since I am the one who wrote the Bio of the artist on Soundcloud and other platform.

Miragemaye (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miragemaye, You don't mention an article but you have answered your own question. Wikipedia doesn't care about profiles written by the subject or their agents/employees/etc on social platforms or any other user submitted platform. Wikipedia does care what reliable sources say about the subject. If there are no independent secondary sources, the chances of an article being accepted are close to zero.Slywriter (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand. where can I find my submission? If it has been rejected due to copywrite? I want to amend it! but cant find it! Miragemaye (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can try WP:REFUND but copyright issues are usually not restored.Slywriter (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - REFUND explicitly does not touch G12s, even to email the last known revision's text. This is for two reasons: First, the person seeking REFUND very likely can access the source the page was plagiarised from, and second because restoring or sending the text to them is meaningless; they should be writing in their own words in the first place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:28, 29 March 2022 review of submission by Yadavmanish999[edit]


Yadavmanish999 07:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yadavmanish999 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not social media where people tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about people that meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:41:04, 29 March 2022 review of submission by Ahwess[edit]


I have simplify the article and only make general info, im not sure which point is look like an advertisement point Ahwess (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahwess Wikipedia is not a place to provide "general info". A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company and its offerings. If you work for B9 Casino, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:27:06, 29 March 2022 review of submission by Yusuf khan books[edit]

Respected sir, My name is Yusuf Khan and I am an author from Mumbai, India, I have been publishing books on Amazone Kindle and have quite good experience in the respected field, but as I am publishing books and gaining popularity, there are other people who get confused by my work as they are not able to find my name on the internet and think it's a different person, due to this I am trying to establish my own internet profile so people easily find about me, and one of the best ways is to have a Wikipedia page. I request you to please approve my page and publish it, it would be very beneficial for me Thank you. Yusuf khan books (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf khan books Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles,, typically written by independent editors. Wikipedia has no interest in enhancing search results for you or in your internet presence. Please read the autobiography policy; Wikipedia is interested in what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. If you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable author, someone will eventually write about you. Be advised that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:54:12, 29 March 2022 review of submission by 2003:C9:CF32:601:252F:CEF5:13FE:9F75[edit]

Mohammad rajab wali Is a very famous person recently growing even more. Lots of people are interested in his history


2003:C9:CF32:601:252F:CEF5:13FE:9F75 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And those people will have to learn about him somewhere else, as this draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:00:53, 29 March 2022 review of draft by Faisal slamari[edit]


Hello, sir I need help about create page for etimes247 newspaper 3 times try to create Submission declined what is problems, I need help. Thank You Faisal slamari (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal slamari Wikipedia is not a place to merely document the existence of a company; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You provide no sources other than the company website. Wikipedia wants to know what others say about Etimes247, not what it says about itself. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok sir what is the process to page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etimes247 Faisal slamari (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Faisal slamari Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Creating a draft is the correct way to start, but you must summarize what independent reliable sources state about the company. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:49, 29 March 2022 review of submission by Hail51[edit]


the following is notable and has a large fanbase in writing lyrics nad many more Hail51 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You offer no independent reliable sources to demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:53:35, 29 March 2022 review of submission by Lexii60[edit]


I Requesting a review on this person beacuse, He is very notable and also a public figure he also in IMDb article about him https://www.imdb.com/name/nm13523054/ he is an Actor, a Recording Artist, and a Game developer ect. I would like a quick review thank you.Lexii60 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lexii60 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source as it is user edited, the draft was rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, But what other reliable sources I can use to prove to you that this person is notable. Lexii60 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSP. SK2242 (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 30[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1080051925"