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


April 10[edit]

Request on 06:22:01, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Mahbub Alam Bhuiyan[edit]

Mahbub Alam Bhuiyan You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:17, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Emmanuelle Dilshad[edit]


Emmanuelle Dilshad (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Draft deleted and its history suppressed. Also, see our guideline on autobiographies. Bsoyka (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:05:45, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Emmanuelle Dilshad[edit]


Emmanuelle Dilshad (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be "very kind, very sensible and have great moral character" but I'm afraid that like most of us you are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not working[edit]

I try to submit my article, but I get this error An error occurred (TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'length')). Please try again or refer to the help desk. Please help Green Echidna (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Faker.js
@Green Echidna: Wikipedia is not a how-to manual; what you've written isn't acceptable in its current state. Its sources are a YouTube video from an unverified channel (unknown provenance), a blog post from someone who could feasibly be called a subject-matter expert, and a tutorial (routine coverage); of those only the blog post could be considered an acceptable source and even then that is debatable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské CourianoI didn't make a how to manual. I just gave a snippet of the code. On programing languages site they also give snippets of code. The youtube video is a reuploaded video from a google software engineer with over 1 million subscribers. So he knows quite a bit about software. What I written was a started piece that if approved would allow others to edit and make it better. That isn't the final product, I just wanted to started a page. This page is about a very popular service and is necessary to complete wikipedia. Green Echidna (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Green Echidna: Then why is the article written in the second-person ("you")? That's not "providing code snippets", that's explaining how to use it. Also, your argument about the YT video is an ironclad argument against using it, as you're basically admitting it's contributory copyright infringement, which we NEVER link to, let alone cite. In the event there is a question as to the veracity or provenance of the source, we do not use that source AT ALL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link, no longer copyright infringement. Saying that is in second person is not painting the full picture. I use you only in "What can It do" section which is fine. If I was writing about apples and I said "You can eat apples". Would that be writing a how-to manual? No of course not. It would just be explaining the purpose of the apple. Just replace the apple with what I am writing about and it is the exact same. Green Echidna (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I was writing about apples and I said "You can eat apples".

That wouldn't be encyclopedic. You could say something like "Humans can eat apples.", but you should never talk to the reader. Bsoyka (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:40:59, 10 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaza613[edit]


I disagree with the reason given for rejecting the submission, namely that the topic is not sufficiently notable. Proof of Humanity was the main focus (not just a side mention) of an article published in TIME magazine (and it was mentioned in a second TIME article), which is surely a reliable independent secondary source. And it was one of the main topics discussed by Vitalik Buterin (inventor of Ethereum) in a high-profile recorded public talk. I added those sources as citations. An internet search will reveal many other secondary sources that refer to Proof of Humanity (admittedly most other sources may not be as reputable, but they're still independent). Furthermore, I have only cited English-language sources, but (as the project is largely based in Argentina) there are also Spanish-language sources that are independent secondary sources. I myself have no affiliation with Proof of Humanity, I only discovered it about two weeks ago. Can somebody please review this submission again, in light of the evidence suggesting that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Jaza613 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaza613: The reviewer commented that the TIME article was a good source, but the rest of it was not, and given that conflict-of-interest sourcing is a massive issue in the topic-area (and the big reason it's under general sanctions), we can't have not-reputable-but-independent sources. I will not comment further as this is, as I mentioned before, covered by a sanctions regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to the reviewer inline in the submission, saying:
Thanks for mentioning Buterin's 2022 book "Proof of Stake", I wasn't aware of it. The book hasn't been published yet, so we don't know exactly what its content will be. But according to https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/714151/proof-of-stake-by-vitalik-buterin/ , it will include the essay "Crypto Cities", which was originally published on Buterin's blog at https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/10/31/cities.html , and which mentions Proof of Humanity.
And:
Proof of Humanity is mentioned in the 2020 academic paper "Sybil-Resilient Coin Minting" , details and full text at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15536 . The paper is in arXiv's CoRR, which isn't peer-reviewed, but is moderated (and the authors of the paper in question have published other work to peer-reviewed journals, such as IEEE/ACM).
So, there you go, two more reliable independent sources.
Once again, I ask that you review this submission again, in light of the evidence suggesting that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Jaza613 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also replied inline, saying:
To clarify, I dug a little deeper, and the mention of Proof of Humanity wasn't in the original 2020 version of the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.15536 , the mention of Proof of Humanity was added to the paper in Feb 2022. Jaza613 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More of my inline replies:
The academic paper that describes Proof of Humanity in greatest detail, is the "Kleros Long Paper" at https://kleros.io/static/yellowpaper_en-8ac96b06f39f19a6a28106cf624e3342.pdf . It's only self-published (and it hasn't been submitted anywhere for peer review, as far as I'm aware), and it's obviously not an independent source, but it has been cited by other independent academic papers, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.06597v1 (submitted for CoRR moderation), and https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3975500 (published in Journal of Law, Technology and Policy).
And:
The academic paper "Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols" https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.05300 also describes Proof of Humanity in reasonable detail. One of the authors is Santiago Siri, so it's obviously not an independent source. But it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Frontiers in Blockchain.
And:
The academic paper "The Social Smart Contract" https://basicincome.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Miller_Sandra_Democracy_Earth_Foundation_Paper_fort_17th_BIEN_The_Social_Smart_Contract.pd_.pdf predates the Proof of Humanity project, but its detailed description of the mechanics of "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2) and "Universal Basic Income" (section 3.3) were the original blueprint that led to Proof of Humanity several years later. The author is listed as the "Democracy Earth Foundation" (and the first person listed on the "Team" is Santiago Siri), so it's obviously not an independent source. But it was presented at the peer-reviewed BIEN Congress.
And:
The TED Talk "How to upgrade democracy for the Internet era" https://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democracy_for_the_internet_era also predates the Proof of Humanity project, but it presents the broad socio-political ideas behind Proof of Humanity, and it describes in detail the direct democracy / liquid democracy experiment (in Buenos Aires, Argentina, about 10 years ago) that directly led to the founding of Democracy Earth, which in turn directly led to Proof of Humanity. The speaker is Pia Mancini, the partner of Santiago Siri, so it's obviously not an independent source. But it doesn't get much more mainstream than a TED Talk. Jaza613 (talk) 04:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another inline reply from me:
Yes, I know that the academic paper "The Social Smart Contract" doesn't mention the term "Proof of Humanity". That's because the paper predates the coining of the term. That paper instead uses the term "Proof of Identity". The paper also makes far more mention of Bitcoin than it does of Ethereum (which was brand-new at the time), whereas Proof of Humanity today is built entirely upon the latter. And the paper describes how Roma Siri (daughter of Santiago and Pia) became the first person in world history to receive a "blockchain valid birth certificate", and it was done using Bitcoin rather than Ethereum. However, you can't discard a source simply because "it fails the CTRL+F test" (nor because implementation details have evolved over time). If you actually read the content of "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2) and "Universal Basic Income" (section 3.3), it's clear that what it's describing (in exhaustive detail) is the "first design draft" of what would later become Proof of Humanity. The paper "Who Watches the Watchmen? A Review of Subjective Approaches for Sybil-resistance in Proof of Personhood Protocols" (which passes the "CTRL+F test") cites "The Social Smart Contract", thus providing proof of the evolutionary link between the paper "The Social Smart Contract" and "Proof of Humanity". And I personally first came across "The Social Smart Contract" (at https://github.com/DemocracyEarth/paper where it's published as a "living roadmap"), and that in turn led me to discover Proof of Humanity. So don't tell me that that paper has nothing to do with Proof of Humanity, it's the project's genesis! Jaza613 (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The academic paper "The Social Smart Contract", in "Proof of Identity" (section 3.2), describes "video proof", "hash proof", and "attention mining", almost exactly as they are implemented today in Proof of Humanity. In particular, it describes how a video must contain a verbal declaration, and how the blockchain public key must be displayed in the visual recording - you can see thousands of such videos online today at https://app.proofofhumanity.id/ . It also uses the term "replicant", which is the exact same term used in https://blog.kleros.io/proof-of-humanity-building-the-internet-of-humans/ (one of the several PoH launch announcements published by Kleros). And for UBI, it uses the term "drip", which is the exact same term used in https://kleros.gitbook.io/docs/products/proof-of-humanity/proof-humanity-tutorial-remove-and-challenge (a PoH guide by Kleros). So, maybe all of that helps the paper to pass your "CTRL+F test". Jaza613 (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found everything that you asked for: mainstream media articles, peer-reviewed academic papers, and detailed descriptions. I would like to think that I've been one of the more patient of the many new contributors whose entries you review. I appreciate all your feedback, and I appreciate your dedication to maintaining Wikipedia's high editorial standards. I really thought that, with a bit of persistence, I would be able to satisfy you as to this entry being ready for publication in Wikipedia. But I give up, it seems clear to me that you're not going to change your mind about rejecting this, at least in the short term. No doubt you hear this all the time, but I honestly think that you're being unreasonable, and that the subject in question is noteworthy enough, and the available sources are reliable enough and comprehensive enough, to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Anyway, if you don't mind, I will keep adding to this draft, I would appreciate you not deleting it. And I hope that you at least agree with me (you have already indicated as much) that the noteworthiness and the available sources for Proof of Humanity appear to be on a significant growth trajectory, so hopefully this entry will be worthy of publication in Wikipedia within the next year or so. Jaza613 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More inline replies that I just added:
The relevant quote from the academic paper, in full, is: "On the other direction, exemplifying emerging communities within the digital realm, the Democracy Earth Foundation is a non governmental initiative towards e-Democracy. It is related to Proof of Humanity, which is quite similar to our approach. They also use a web of trust for identification, though it seems for now that a single endorser is enough for one to be accepted. They use Kleros, a distributed online dispute resolution protocol, to resolve identity disputes. Interestingly, in some cases, when an identity is found to be 'Duplicate' or 'Does not exist', they remove from the registry all the identities that vouched for it. This is more harsh than the approach presented here, that only penalizes these neighbours. Proof of Humanity also delivers universal basic income to registered users." That's more than a mere mention if you ask me.
And:
I should also point out that in the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHm7H4zOim8 which I cited, Vitalik Buterin is briefly introduced by Santiago Siri, but he is then interviewed by Olivia Goldschmidt, who is a journalist with La Nación. You can see her articles at https://www.lanacion.com.ar/autor/olivia-goldschmidt-8226/ . La Nación is considered the leading traditional newspaper in Argentina, and has the second-highest readership in the country. Buterin's talk was also covered here https://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/vitalik-buterin-argentina-segui-vivo-charla-creador-ethereum-guru-criptomonedas_0_h4ucApriz.html by Clarín, the leading liberal newspaper in Argentina, with the number-one highest readership in the country.
And:
There are several other articles describing Proof of Humanity in reasonable detail, from those mainstream Argentine newspapers, for example: https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/santiago-siri-que-haya-un-discurso-mas-amigable-con-el-mercado-en-las-nuevas-generaciones-me-da-un-nid28112021/ , https://www.clarin.com/tecnologia/metaverso-web3-nft-dao-significan-palabras-tech-surgieron-2021-definiran-futuro_0_Oo41ZDHM7.html , https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/negocios/criptomonedas-el-proyecto-de-un-argentino-que-capto-el-interes-de-los-grandes-jugadores-del-mercado-nid26102021/ . Jaza613 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:04:42, 10 April 2022 review of submission by Yoshio Daggett Official[edit]


Hello! I wanted to contact you regarding the kind rejection I received. I have read that writing an autobiography is not how it is normally done here on Wikipedia, but I was wondering, if I can't do it, who can? As I understand it, the reason many autobiographies are deleted because of bias, however I do not believe I showed any bias in this page, and feel it remained purely informational. I read that one other reason may be lack of external credibility, and have compiled a list of external sources regarding the authenticity of my career of being an author. The primary reason I wanted to submit this article is to obtain an image of professionalism in my work (whether that be if someone wants to know about me, or just googles my name). If you have any feedback on how I could make this happen, it would be extremely appreciated. Thank you for your time and patience, and have a wonderful day. Yoshio Daggett Official (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshio Daggett Official: "Obtain an image of professionalism"? That isn't something Wikipedia is ever going to be capable of doing by its very design. People, as a general rule, tend to be bad at seeing their own biases in what they write unless it's blatant; just because you can't see bias doesn't mean people with no connexion to you or your surrogates can't. As for sourcing, a Google search (string: "yoshio daggett") shows no in-depth, non-routine, independent sources written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, retracts, and corrects, so any discussion of an article about you is grossly premature - there's literally nothing for us to work with on the sourcing front, which means our notability and biographical policies are impossible to satisfy at this stage. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. As all the article contained was my age (Redacted), and list of published books, I thought it had be unbiased but, as you said, I must have been blatant. I apologize, as I am still trying to navigate my way through this new territory. Thank you, and have a wonderful day. Yoshio Daggett Official (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very strongly urge you to also read WP:Guidance for younger editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoshio Daggett Official: Wikipedia is not for merely documenting your career or existence. That's what social media is for, and you should use that to tell the world about yourself. I would suggest that you simply go on with your life and career and not worry about a Wikipedia article. There are good reasons to not want one. If you truly meet the notability criteria, an independent editor will take note of coverage of you and choose to write about you. Trying to force the issue as you are is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 11[edit]

05:56:36, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Arrecife[edit]

RE: Draft:Tapovan, Sri Chinmoy Peace Park I wish to modify the article so it is encyclopedic, and I have made some efforts in this direction. Please tell me what else I need to do so that it does not seem like an advertisement. Arrecife (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer, you must appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:12:03, 11 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by MikeTimesONE[edit]


Hello. My draft was unfortunately rejected for being WP:TOOSOON, and the reviewer suggested to incorporate any additional information to Dr Disrespect. What do I do now? I've been working on this draft since February, and I am very frustrated. I don't want any of my work to go to waste. MikeTimesONE


MikeTimesONE 12:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:13:53, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Basilic25[edit]


Hi ! I just submitted a draft and realized that I made a mistake in the title of the page... The page should be called "Gallia Préhistoire" and not just "Gallia". I can't find how to change the title for a draft. Thanks for your help!

Basilic25 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basilic25 Renaming any page is accomplished with a page move, but Don't worry about it, other than to make a note on the draft talk page with the title you intend. If and when the draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:35:21, 11 April 2022 review of draft by DamesnetV[edit]


This entry has been rejected for not having enough citations, but I note that it has more than many of the biographical articles I have seen on Wikipedia. What is needed specifically over and above the ones I already have?

Many thanks

DamesnetV (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:03:52, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Euaanmill[edit]


Hello

I submitted a question about this previously, but the replies I received did not help me reach a conclusive answer so I'm posting again - hope that is OK.

My query is regarding notability, for which my article Draft:The_Portraits_(music_duo) has been rejected most recently.

In the Wikipedia 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."

I 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.

I sought advice on the above in a previous post, asking for pointers on what exactly your editors remain sceptical about regarding notability, as I am totally confident that the subject of this draft article does fulfil the criteria to merit such an entry.

The reply I received, rather than responding to my defence of the article in terms of its notability, seemed to suggest disbelief that I'm not personally benefitting financially from writing this article. This would seem to be a separate issue from notability, but let me state unequivocally that I am not being paid to write the article in money or kind and I'm not sure where this suggestion comes from.

I am therefore left rather confused as to the reasons for rejection, which seem no longer to be related to the officially stated reason for rejection, i.e. the notability criteria, but instead to my own character as a contributor.

Could I respectfully request further clarification in light of my above points?

Many thanks in advance.

Euaanmill


Euaanmill (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euanmill, Notability is not inherited. Your sources can make an argument for the song being notable, though I believe other reviewers have highlighted that many/all are interviews which do not establish notability(I have not reviewed the individual sources, only the titles). For the subjects themselves to be notable, you should find WP:THREE independent sources that discuss them in depth and establish notability. If you believe three sources already meet this (or have 3 additional), then you should share them with the reviewer who rejected so they can re-consider.Slywriter (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do believe the sources already submitted do meet this, so I shall attempt to resubmit to the reviewer. Best wishes. Euaanmill (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:12:45, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Abhijeete18[edit]


Abhijeete18 (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the image[edit]

The article is not yet written in English. This is about the image taken from the Persian version in wiki_farsi. I just wanted to know if the picture according to the explanation (old picture) can be in my sandbox or not? Arbabi second (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it does or not is academic. Images don't help drafts what-so-ever. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:09:19, 11 April 2022 review of draft by Krishnadahal12[edit]


Krishna Dahal (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about specific reason why this article has not been accepted yet. There are at least reference from four independent sources. Please look into it again. Thanks.

Not clear how they pass WP:NSINGER? Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:42:27, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Irishkiwi007[edit]

You state that This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, this movie has now won a category at an international film festival. What more do you need? Also, how is it contrary? Thanks

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Irishkiwi007: Award ≠ notability. Notability is the extent to which a subject has been discussed in independent reliable sources; see the general notability guideline for more information. Bsoyka (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:43:33, 11 April 2022 review of submission by ARodgersEditor[edit]


Hello, I have removed promotional "fluff" from the article, and I also added independent sources under a new Reference heading. I believe the citations are all done correctly and the sources are sufficient to prove the notability of the subject. I would appreciate if you could please review my article again. Thank you. ARodgersEditor (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to @S0091. Bsoyka (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:08:42, 11 April 2022 review of submission by Jairocugliari[edit]

Dear editor, I am asking for advice since precedent editions were considered insufficient to meet wikipedia standards. Specifically, I would like to check if the information box contains relevant information, if the sources are alright, and finally I need help to update the logo file.

Best, JC Jairocugliari (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Regarding images, fair use images (like logos) cannot be in drafts. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

09:18:21, 12 April 2022 review of submission by HasanMougharbel444[edit]


Please could anyone explain to me why my article is decline?

HasanMougharbel444 (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HasanMougharbel444, the reviewer declined it because it does not meet our notability guidelines, which requires (in most cases) 2 independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Justiyaya 09:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:56:16, 12 April 2022 review of submission by 61.3.128.51[edit]


61.3.128.51 (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, regarding your draft, the reviewer determined it was not notable enough, meaning that it doesn't have reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage to the subject (WP:GNG) and that they don't think these sources can be found. If you still think it is notable, please provide 3 sources that you think meets the above criteria. Justiyaya 10:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also please read guidance for young editors Justiyaya 10:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:45:11, 12 April 2022 review of submission by Joesunrunner[edit]

Hello, my article was declined. I need to know why and what I can do to fix whatever needs fixing. We are not a very famous band. But we have been making albums and touring since 2011 without any breakups, without delays, without any financial assistance from record labels or (anyone else for that matter) and without any plans of retirement in foreseable future. There are bands on wikipedia that have been around half as long as we have. I understand there needs to be credentials to prove existence, and these other bands are very famous. But we have endured the music industry for over a decade and are still moving forward. If I have to dig deeper to find more proof, that is fine. I just need to know what is wrong exactly to help me get to the bottom of it.

O.K., thanks for your time -Joe

Oh, the above instructions said to paste a couple things in this box, so I pasted them below. Joesunrunner (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


pasted from instructions: 12:45:11, 12 April 2022 review of submission by Joesunrunner


Joesunrunner Please read other stuff exists; the existence of other articles has no bearing on your draft. Each is considered on its own merits. Please also read conflict of interest as you should formally declare yours if you haven't yet.
Wikipedia is not for merely documenting the existence of a band, and how long it has existed is immaterial. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion. An article about a band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Interviews, press releases, brief mentions, and routine announcements do not establish notability. Which notability criteria do you claim your band meets, and what are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:01:25, 12 April 2022 review of submission by Tradingeditor[edit]


Tradingeditor (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, please can you explain why this article has been rejected? There are multiple high quality sources of notability for the company and its uses as a data resource.

Hi @Tradingeditor, the reviewer thought that it wasn't sufficiently notable, meaning that (in most cases) there isn't significant coverage by 2 reliable, independent sources to the subject. Justiyaya 18:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this isn't accurate at all. Please could this be reviewed as the editor hasn't given any reason that it wasn't sufficiently notable - there are several examples of significant coverage by 2 reliable, independent sources to the subject. Tradingeditor (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also claims which are not supported by the sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:21:18, 12 April 2022 review of submission by Nnamani John[edit]

I added news articles about this person and removed most unreliable sources. I request a re-review from you. Thank You.

Nnamani John (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you added three versions of a press release, they are not suitable for establishing notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Explain with details please, Musicbrainz is considered notable, Genius (website) is considered both reliable and unreliable depending on the context, news articles are considered notable too. There are some people with 0 or few primary sources that are on Wikipedia but are tagged "This page relies on primary sources", you didn't take action to theirs, I provided some that Wikipedia itself requested for, but you see no notability with it. Please explain with details why this subject is not notable or have a thorough check before replying. I need detailed explanation please. Thank You. Nnamani John (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your autobiography has zero chance of being accepted, unless you can find in-depth significant coverage of you, that shows that you pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER, listings at Musicbrainz and discogs are of no use, please also see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:32:42, 12 April 2022 review of submission by Sabinkama[edit]

i want to know if the article is submitted for review Sabinkama (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, I have added the submit template, you need to click the blue link, "submit the draft for review". Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:52, 12 April 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 lots of news article about him https://menafn.com/1103995390/Clappa-Don-a-Young-Jamaican-Animator-Actor, https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/568203782/clappa-don-a-young-jamaican-animator-actor he is an Animator, Actor and a Recording Artist. I would like a quick review thank youLexii60 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was reviewed twice and declined, the third time it was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what can I do to prove to you guys that this person is notable Lexii60 (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lexii60: Refer to the top table of User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
I suggest you stop using Wikipedia to promote this person before you end up blocked for it. Quit wasting your time and ours. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then but am NOT promoting this person am just writing about this person because he is very very notable to the public, he also featured in short movies and as I said before he is in news article https://www.wicz.com/story/46267071/clappa-don-a-young-jamaican-animator-actor,https://www.wpgxfox28.com/story/46267071/clappa-don-a-young-jamaican-animator-actor, https://article.wn.com/view/2022/04/12/Clappa_Don_a_Young_Jamaican_Animator_Actor/ this is most of the news article but their are lots of about this person Lexii60 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lexii60: Literally all of those are the exact same EIN Presswire piece that Menafn uses, and are thus as useless as that source is (connexion to subject). Have you actually read the sources you're using? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did, He also in Bloomberg article but its all from different source Lexii60 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why haven't you cited it? Is it because you don't actually have access to the article or are you trying to bullshit us? I'd wager the latter, since a Google search (string: "Clappa Don") turns up absolutely no Bloomberg or CNN articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:30, 12 April 2022 review of submission by Lexii60[edit]

This person is featured in Bloomberg article and CNN as well he is very notable to the public so i would like a qiuck review on this personLexii60 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Lexii60 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant lie, and a Google search puts paid to it, as I explained above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look in the news section? As I said this person is notable to the public so I don't know why it is so hard to approve this information. Lexii60 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You people are so fucking hard so understand..SMH Lexii60 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and it only returned the EIN press release. No Bloomberg, no CNN. The News tab is literally the first thing I check when looking for sources for a subject. What is your connexion to Clappa Don? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 22:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you use EIN press release and tagged it say need more reliabe source Please Lexii60 (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because we don't cite press releases due to them being written on behalf of the subject. What is your connexion to Clappa Don? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true, but press releases certainly can't determine notability. In general, I'd treat a press release as a self-published source from the subject. Bsoyka (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's academic because there are no sources available which can be used for notability, making that pretty much moot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a more serious problem than just potentially needed more reliable sources. If an article subject does not meet the general notability guideline, it almost certainly will not be added to the encyclopedia. Now, as asked above, what is your connection to the article subject? Bsoyka (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a connexion to Clappa Don he is just a public figure/ Actor that I see on the media and I want to make a wikipedia about him Lexii60 (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So again can you guys approve it and put a tagged on it like need more reliable sources or something. Lexii60 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Did you read my last message? Bsoyka (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely fucking not. And you'll forgive me if I don't buy your claim of having no connexion due to your persistence here, your editing history, and the deletion log on Clappa Don. There's been some sort of concerted effort to try and get a promotional piece up for him over the past half-year and this looks just like another incarnation of that effort. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guh suck yuh madda battybowy Lexii60 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are so disrespectful Lexii60 (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I, and the rest of us, have zero tolerance for being lied to and being insulted by someone who clearly isn't here to build an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lied about what? but if it was a celebrity you approve it long time before the writer even submit it..thats bullshit you guys pick and choice who to approve thats fuck up Lexii60 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You claimed there were Bloomberg and CNN sources. Despite me indicating that Google does not pull up those articles, you've yet to provide a link to either of them (instead questioning how I did the search) - but have happily trotted out links to that same rehashed EIN press release and tried to pass them off as a source we would accept despite the fact that even a cursory look at those sources' ledes should have told you these articles were unacceptable. I also, as I have indicated, don't believe you're not a mercenary due to your monomania for this topic and your persistence bordering on "I must do this or I'll be fired" levels of aggression. How we handle other pages is irrelevant; we're discussing your draft and any potential article on Clappa Don, which (based on what I can find in a search and the sources already provided in the draft) is an impossibility at present. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my rejection. Article is promotional junk, sources are promotional junk.22:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slywriter (talk • contribs)

April 13[edit]

07:25:31, 13 April 2022 review of submission by Apok73[edit]

Can you please suggest the changes required for this Wikipedia draft? Let me know your suggestions to move it towards publishing. Apok73 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Apok73: As explained by the reviewer, there's literally nothing you can do for this to become an article because the sourcing we're looking for - in-depth, non-routine, independent news articles about the company written by identifiable authors and published in outlets with editorial oversight that fact-checks, discloses, corrects, and retracts - flat-out does not exist. No amount of editing can overcome an absence of sources with which to base the article off of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 07:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apok73 (ec) Unfortunately no changes are possible, as no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. The draft was rejected and as such will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:23:19, 13 April 2022 review of submission by Abdullahskme[edit]


Abdullahskme (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:02:15, 13 April 2022 review of submission by MikeTimesONE[edit]

Since no one even bothered to give me a answer from before, I may as well try again. Draft:Midnight Society (game studio) got rejected for WP:TOOSOON. Reviewer said to add additional information to Dr Disrespect till then. Very frustrated. Worked on it since FEBRUARY. What do I do now? MikeTimesONE

MikeTimesONE 12:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do now?

Add information to Dr Disrespect. Also see WP:OVERCOME. Bsoyka (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you take up the advice and add content to Dr Disrespect. Theroadislong (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:05:38, 13 April 2022 review of submission by Swatiysahu[edit]


In this article I have given general information about KC Overseas Education. What is the importance of studying abroad and what are the factors keep in mind while overseas education.I have also given information about how one can apply for overseas education at the top universities in various countries.

Swatiysahu (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT what Wikipedia is for. It is just blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:26:38, 13 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Yatesm[edit]


As the subject matter of a very very bad article, I am an artist and not used to word processing, so I have been trying to find what could be done. I understood that there was a problem being the subject but - There is a total bias on the part of this article in favour of the author’s commercial interest in generating sales of a few of the subject’s (my) artistic products which are presently in the possession of the author. There is also a complete failure on the part of the author to comply with the strict policy of a neutral point of view, which has led to disruptive editing involving bias and misrepresentation of my personal details, numerous instances of distressingly incorrect data and the most clumsy and ill-informed representation of my art production, giving the impression that I ceased production or disappeared 40 years ago,(for example - the Notable Artworks Section ends in 1982.) I can provide a strong list of published references for the editors to use. I have received advice from three editors the first one said I had to edit every line inside a box system,and give the alternative line, and why, the second told me to edit it in my sandbox and get it approved. I followed the second suggestion because the current bad version is very very long. it has taken me days but it is almost ready so I asked for editor comments in my sandbox and the third editor would not accept it and said I had to edit the article in the article's page not in my sandbox. Now I do not know what to do or even if I am allowed as the subject to change anything. You can still see my edit in my sandbox I think.PS I am not sure what the instruction - "sign your posts on talk pages 13:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)~~" means sorry Yatesm (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:54:39, 13 April 2022 review of submission by Mizzystyliston[edit]


Mizzystyliston (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:45:48, 13 April 2022 review of submission by LittleMAHER1[edit]


LittleMAHER1 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there hello, I was wondering if you guys could tell us some tips or how to get the Scott the Woz article accepted or how to make it notable

@LittleMAHER1: Page was deleted one year ago. Since that time, there doesn't appear to be any coverage outside of blogs and fandom type articles. Nothing I see that would be considered significant coverage or in-depth. In addition, the page is highly promotional and not even close to what a Wikipedia entry should be. In less words: an article is impossible at this time for want of sourcing. You cannot "make" a subject notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:18:20, 13 April 2022 review of submission by MoyaiViper[edit]


MoyaiViper (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC) So I got my humorous essay i submitted reported for speedy deletion as vandalism. One of my favorite articles onwikipedia is Wikipedia:CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh? its realy funny and I was trying to make one for text form.[reply]

I removed my speedy deletion, I rejected the draft but if another reviewer thinks differently I will not object. Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MoyaiViper, just so you know, Articles for Creation is for creating pages that will become public articles in the main article wp:namespace. Wikipedia:CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh? is not in the main article namespace, it's in the internal "Wikipedia:" namespace where we keep policies, guidelines, and essays. Right now your page is at User:MoyaiViper/sandbox, which is in the "User:" namespace. You are welcome to create essays in your own userspace or sandbox--which is what you did--but that's where it should stay. It won't get moved into the article space, and you shouldn't submit it through AfC. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok I see. Thanks! MoyaiViper (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Alyo (chat·edits) 17:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:13:36, 13 April 2022 review of draft by Mobius Gerig[edit]


I'm currently having issues with trying to make the storm's category into a "Subtropical Depression". Help will be very much appreciated. Mobius Gerig (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mobius Gerig: Since wind speeds exceeded 39 MPH, it should be classified as a storm. I made some edits accordingly. But here's a category that you can use once the article is approved. Category:Tropical cyclones in 2022 TechnoTalk (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:26:06, 13 April 2022 review of submission by Olivershiny[edit]

The National Day Archives (https://www.nationaldayarchives.com/day/national-rugelach-day/) entry on this newly established holiday has been expanded. The establishing parties seem serious. Olivershiny (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivershiny: Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't an advertising platform for Lee Lee's. Until this subject gets significant coverage in the media to meet WP:GNG, you're better off writing about this on social media. TechnoTalk (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:35:14, 13 April 2022 review of submission by Aziza2022[edit]

Hi i am trying to add all ecommerce companies information on wikipedia why my article is denieD? Aziza2022 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aziza2022 Wikipedia is not a directory of companies. A company must meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company to merit inclusion; mere existence is not enough. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 14[edit]

09:16:59, 14 April 2022 review of submission by Hail51[edit]

I have updated and cited the sources and have thoroughly included all my work

Hail51 (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hail51 The draft was rejected, and as such will not be considered further. If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer, you must appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:56, 14 April 2022 review of submission by امین شهرابی فراهانی 2[edit]


hi i made some changes can you check again? امین شهرابی فراهانی 2 (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is completely unreferenced, which also means the subject is at this stage (pretty much by definition) non-notable.
Can I also ask, are you using two accounts, امین شهرابی فراهانی and 2امین شهرابی فراهانی, or have I got something mixed up? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@امین شهرابی فراهانی 2 pinging. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:39, 14 April 2022 review of submission by Mirvoulv[edit]


Mirvoulv (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:20:36, 14 April 2022 review of submission by Sunnysinghwiki[edit]

Can you please Help me what content should I remove from this wiki page, so that it would eligible to publish. Please help! Sunnysinghwiki (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:21:58, 14 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Elina1499[edit]


Hello, I'm having a problem with publishing this article about gambling website based in Tbilisi, Georgia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crocobet I have used several independent references in this topic but the reviewer commented that "sources need to be in-depth and independent". Can you please explain why aren't these sources relevant and what information should I provide for this topic to be published? I can provide you official license and other documentation in terms to prove that this online business actually exists. If you need any other information just let me know, I'm new at Wikipedia and will be very thankful for your help. Thanks in advance.

Elina1499 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AS per my comment on the draft we have zero interest in what their own website has to say, sources need to be in-depth and independent. Theroadislong (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14:55:35, 14 April 2022 review of draft by Ayaeladem[edit]


Why is my article being rejected?

Ayaeladem (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't being rejected, it was declined because it needs coverage in independent reliable sources that are about Carlos Noujeim. Biographies are not to be written from primary sources (like his own papers). Theroadislong (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ayaeladem Note that "rejected" has a specific meaning here, it means a draft cannot be resubmitted. Your draft was only declined. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:58, 14 April 2022 review of draft by 2600:1700:442:2810:C0B7:CFE1:EADD:22B8[edit]


Can someone take a look at this draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Way.com? They've been flagged for notability issues; however, there are very few companies that can claim they've made the Top 100 Marketplace list https://future.a16z.com/marketplace-100/.

2600:1700:442:2810:C0B7:CFE1:EADD:22B8 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there is anything inherently notable about that? Theroadislong (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:35, 14 April 2022 review of submission by Dave2100[edit]


Hi, I have added more info, kindly publish, thanks!

Dave2100 (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dave2100 The draft was rejected, meaning resubmission is not possible. If you have new information that was not considered by the reviewer, you must first appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 15[edit]

08:15:36, 15 April 2022 review of submission by 206.84.143.107[edit]


206.84.143.107 (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:25:55, 15 April 2022 review of submission by MrVastayan[edit]

The company is official and a pruduct has been released. MrVastayan (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrVastayan Neither of which is relevant. A company does not merit an article for merely existing. A company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. As it appears this company does not, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:16:55, 15 April 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by 109.183.207.18[edit]


I noticed Wikipedia didn't have an article about a billion-dollar company Worldcoin. So I wrote a short one, only to be rebuffed: Draft:Worldcoin Could someone please let me know what is wrong with my submission? You are saying the article does "not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I am using references to Technology Review, Bloomberg, BuzzFeed News and CNBC, all of them wrote articles specifically about this project. I am not connected to the project, but I feel that Wikipedia should have an article about company that has a billion+ dollar evaluation. Especially since there is a talk of the company doing shady stuff and people will be looking for information.

109.183.207.18 (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first clue I see that notability(as defined at WP:ORG) is not satisfied is the word "startup". Startups almost never merit articles; a company must be established in its field to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. This is typically because articles about "startups" are typically sourced to press releases or announcements of routine business activities like the commencement of operations or the raising of capital. In this case, your sources seem to involve interviews, which are a primary source and do not establish notability. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own, and not based on materials put out by the company, to say about it.
You have chosen to edit in a contentious area(cryptocurrencies) which has its own special rules due to prior and constant disruption in this topic area. I will inform you of those rules on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:30, 15 April 2022 review of draft by 216.30.182.130[edit]


216.30.182.130 (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

15:22:30, 15 April 2022 review of submission by 216.30.182.130

I am working to identify proper sources for my draft article. Does this count as a good source? https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200729005774/en/Fast-Company-Names-WillowTree-100-Workplaces-Innovators

Hi IP, thanks for posting a message here, unfortunately, it does not appear to be a good source, see WP:PRSOURCE and its about us page Justiyaya 16:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 16[edit]

05:47:21, 16 April 2022 review of draft by LightProof1995[edit]


Hello, I am having trouble writing this article to make it sound neutral. I can't tell if I need to add more *science* to it, or if it just doesn't have enough references, i.e. the "don't speculate". It is possible I wrote some stuff down that I saw, without me including it in the references... but I'm not sure, there is a lot of science in the references. Any help on this would be much appreciated. EDIT: I added some more references. Everything I talk about is 100% covered in the references now. I feel like I only hardly changed it though; I feel I need a second opinion.

LightProof1995 (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1082970245"