Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
No edit summary
Tag: Reverted
(No difference)

Revision as of 21:54, 8 November 2020

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

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


November 2

00:50:32, 2 November 2020 review of submission by 106.207.189.201


I am new to Wikipedia. This article is created to help Indian Students looking for carrier opportunities in one of the 58 Services under Government of India. This article try to explain different unknown aspects of This Government service. I have made this article out of many Govt. resources along with my personal inputs. Please help me to improve this article for its acceptance for publication. 106.207.189.201 (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:ARTSPAM and WP:GNG to begin. Snowycats (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:46:20, 2 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Piete Brooks


We're not quite sure what the problems are.

It says "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.", but there are many links to the local Govt docs (although the planning portal is currently undergoing some changes, so some documents are temporarily unavailable) and other local historical documents. The author has a number of paper documents (much of it pre-dates online minutes etc) - is there a standard way to make such documents available if (e.g.) the newspaper archives are only available on paper?

It says "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed.", but the author is trying just to state facts, rather than push a psrticular viewpoint (although she does have very strong views). Are there any particular parts which need work on, or is there a general change of style which woul help?

Thanks. Piete Brooks (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piete Brooks, Having diverse sources from a variety of places is important. Many statements throughout your article are unsourced and/or opinionated, lacking any factual evidence. Snowycats (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

08:50:58, 2 November 2020 review of draft by Education4Peace



Dear Sir/Madam. I am trying to create a Wikipedia page for the Organisation of Educational Cooperation (OEC) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Organisation_of_Educational_Cooperation#Organisation_of_Educatio...) but the page has been declined twice. The latest comment we received from Nightenbelle was:

"Article has source dump in the first couple sections, then VERY aparcly sourced after that. Notability remains unclear as sources appear to be interviews and press releases- and sourcing needs to conform to WP standards."

Not sure how to best address these comments and ensure that the page gets live, but any advice on how we can fulfil the sourcing needs for the page, in conformity with WP standards, would be greatly appreciated.

From my end, I will definitively reduce the use of sources in the beginning of the page, so as to avoid source dump, but with regard to the referencing in conformity with WP standards, I would very much appreciate further guidance so as to avoid a third rejection from the editors of Wikipedia.

Education4Peace (talk) 08:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education4Peace If you are associated with this organization, you must review WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:26, 2 November 2020 review of submission by 许木23


the chinese VC Yunqi Partners targets to raise $275m for third fund and Invest in many enterprises，it has 15 references。


许木23 (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

许木23, If you have specific questions on where you are confused, let me know. Snowycats (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why do not this submission's 15 references show that the subject？What else do they need ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 许木23 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:00:26, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Panchamiar

[1]


Panchamiar (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the responses from 30 October, here and here. @Panchamiar: please do not create any more accounts. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.google.com/search?q=silvius+boby+silva&hl=en-US&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wO3z2ePsAhX7zzgGHYyiC2kQ_AUoAXoECAYQAw&biw=1150&bih=654

13:01:20, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Some Dude From North Carolina

I've submitted this page for review twice now, and it has been rejected, twice. The article is on a film directed by Marianne Farley, and about her upcoming feature film directorial debut. Since the film is from Canada, most of the sources are in French. Additionally, interviews or images of the film's production are not released that often. With this in mind, the article is notable on what it's based on, has sources explaining at least the bare minimum of information needed for notability, and will most likely stay a "short article" when the film is released, so I'm asking for help on how to improve it.

P.S. A poster of the film is already available here. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some Dude From North Carolina Sources do not need to be in English. It helps, but is not required. The issue with the draft is that the sources do not seem to indicate how the film meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film, specifically that of an unreleased film. The reviewer suggested that "It is still an unreleased film and still should be resubmitted with reception information after the film is released". 331dot (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I get that, but waiting until a film is released is still a lot to ask. Most film articles are made when the film is announced, take the original page of what would later become I'm Thinking of Ending Things (film). The production info was small, yet it was moved because it had a cast, premise, and information on when the film was filmed. Like I said before, North of Albany will clearly stay a small article, and I've used every source I could find. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina If you wish to change the film notability criteria regarding unreleased films, you will need to get consensus to do so at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films). Note that there are likely reasons that not every unreleased film merits an article(I have some guesses, but I won't speculate). It's not usually a good idea to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see other stuff exists. Those articles could be problematic themselves and just unaddressed, or they may have circumstances unique to them. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: So what can I do to make this article notable before its released? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some Dude From North Carolina There is nothing that you can do. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. As was suggested, once the film is released, you will be in the clear, or the production of the film is itself covered in reliable sources with significant coverage(beyond press releases, staff interviews, etc.). That's all. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Well, thanks for telling me. I have a question though: can I upload the film's poster to the draft? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar enough with uploading images to be 100% confident in any answer I would give. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Fair-use images cannot be used in draftspace, and images do not help drafts in any instance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 17:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Now that you're here, do you see anything I could improve on the article? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:13, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi


Your observation is incorrect. He graduated from University of Cumberlands with a MS Degree in Information Systems Security on August 27th 2020 and an MBA - General management with Assam Donbosco University on October 5 2020. Please review again.

Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi That doesn't mean that the individual meets the notability criteria. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know, what else needs to be cited in this article to make it notable. the news are still coming out and few more interviews or articles will get published in coming weeks. Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravidurgashashikamalnidhi Please edit this existing section for any follow up comments, and do not create additional sections. Interviews do not establish notability, as Wikipedia is not interested in what an article subject says about themselves. It is certainly possible that this person could later meet the notability criteria, but they do not right now. If they do in the future, you could ask the reviewer that rejected your draft to reconsider. I see that this is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have some sort of connection to this person? 331dot (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:39:46, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Painter80302


Painter80302 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia, so I am still learning the criteria for articles. In August, I created a draft for Articles for Creation: Sarah McKenzie (artist). Initially, the reviewer, MurielMary, recommended that I move the artist's awards out of the infobox and that I include more citations/sources. I did substantial editing, but the article was declined again by the same reviewer. Are there guidelines available for what qualifies a visual artist as being "notable" or having "significant coverage" that I might see before continuing with further edits?

Thank you! Painter30802

See WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Painter80302: Significant coverage means in-depth coverage about the article subject themself, i.e. Sarah McKenzie. This content must be published in mainstream reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (meaning no blogs or niche publications or things like that), and the content must be independent of the subject meaning it can't rely on McKenzie as the source of the information. So that would exclude interviews and such. Please see WP:GNG if you want to read the guidelines about that. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm sorry I neglected to include the draft. Here is it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_McKenzie_(artist)

I believe that the citations in the draft given do meet the above criteria (mainstream , reliable, respected, independent), but perhaps the reviewer still feels that the subject doesn't meet the qualifications for notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Painter80302 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:55, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Rajinder Singh Meena


Rajinder Singh Meena (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder Singh Meena You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by the reviewers. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read literally nothing that was said last time? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20:45:51, 2 November 2020 review of submission by Sarimgilani

hi this is my first article. i wanted to know when my article would be reviewed and when it will be published , can someone help me on this ??

Sarimgilani (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarimgilani As noted in the yellow box on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,486 pending submissions waiting for review." You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
can I contact a reviewer by myself , to show him/her my work, and second question is if reviewer make a page does he need to review from another person ?? and If reviewing takes so much time then how about latest issues are on Wikipedia so quick ? Sarimgilani (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarimgilani: I don't think reviewers would like to be pressured into reviewing the article you created when there are other people waiting. To answer your second question, experienced editors don't typically need to go through the drafting/review process because they understand basics like adhering to our general notability guideline and identifying reputable sources. That should also answer your third question. New editors should absolutely go through this system. Are you in a hurry or something? Seems like we could wait a while before publishing an article about a figure from the 12th century. Also the article still needs improvement since you didn't address the Five Ws. For instance, you neglected to indicate when the person lived, which seems to be important, or where he was born or where he was from, or what he did that would name him notable. The goal here is to try to demonstrate that the subject is notable, and you do that not only by writing about the subject in detail, but including references that include in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. See our general notability guideline. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarimgilani, Next time - please don't clog up my talk page AND here with your questions. Ask once and be patient as we're all volunteers. Cheers, Snowycats (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

01:46:13, 3 November 2020 review of submission by Kevinmage1212


Kevinmage1212 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevinmage1212: You didn't ask a question, but the last review said: "This is your third attempt to submit the draft, and yet, there's no evidence you're able to find independent references" and most of the references in the article are to janettaylorperry.com, so maybe take the hint that this isn't a sufficient reference and either find independent references, or bow out on the article. See WP:GNG. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

02:04:39, 3 November 2020 review of draft by Excel23


Need an opinion on this article and need to have it reviewed to be accepted. I think I made the final changes needed to have it accepted into Wikipedia. Excel23 (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excel23, It is pending review. Please wait. Snowycats (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:11:15, 3 November 2020 review of submission by Ananya2212

Draft:Gaya Prasad Mehrotra I had recently published a draft, it got declines and the reason that was given to me was that you need to work first on having more than one source (whether online or offline) and then on making the article neutral. I want to know exactly how I can change my draft to make it acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. I have written about my late great grandfather, so I know the facts and I have given sources for the sites where I have gotten the post held by him. My article has a similar format to another article about a politician that was recently posted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivanand_Tiwari

Ananya2212 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:03:43, 3 November 2020 review of submission by Trotwood78


Hi, i've just translated the italian wikipedia page Citterio: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citterio.

I think that if it was ok for Wikipedia Italia, it can be ok also for Wikipedia English


Trotwood78 (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Trotwood78: I am afraid your logic is mistaken. Since Every Wikipedia is a seperate project with seperate rules, the existence of an article in one Wikipedia cannot be cited as an argument for the existence or non-existence in other Wikipedias. see other stuff exists. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10:29:32, 3 November 2020 review of draft by Balan Raj


My draft is rejected with comment of no notable referencing. I would like to know if Wikipedia and Malaysian book of records webpage is not taken as notable referencing? Thanks. Balan Raj (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balan Raj: yes, Wikipedia and Youtube are not regarded as a reliable source, see WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR (for the former). Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Balan Raj, just to clarify, YouTube can be used in referencing if the YouTube Channel is verified and if the channel is linked to a major mainstream source. For instance, BBC News is a reputable news outlet, so we could use a verified BBC News YouTube channel. But generally speaking, most YouTube videos are user-created, and in many cases, they are copyright violations, which we don't want to promote. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11:28:10, 3 November 2020 review of draft by 197.48.243.18


Can I add @Draft:Ali Mansour (Actor) in wikipedia?

197.48.243.18 (talk) 11:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and is pending review. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:26:58, 3 November 2020 review of draft by AD202020


AD202020 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC) I am really sorry I do not understand what I need to do to correct this?[reply]

Diana's co-mentor on the BBC painting challenge Pascal Anson's page has been published and his links no longer work, I am perplexed at what the problem is?

AD202020 Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. It could be that the other article is problematic too, or has unique circumstances that merit that person an article.
In this case, please review the comments left by reviewers on the draft. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:26:38, 3 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rdmackinnon


Good day, I believe I made the changes I need for the article, can someone review? Added refs for second section and list of notable publications. I have been using this as a guide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Tilley#cite_ref-4 Thank you Rdmackinnon (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rdmackinnon, Feel free to submit if you want a review. Snowycats (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:25:32, 3 November 2020 review of draft by Shafiqchesspak


Shafiqchesspak (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shafiqchesspak, You did not ask a question. Snowycats (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:26:18, 3 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Blakedes2

Sources

Hello, This is the third page i have created and most of the info i got was from My own research and a single source. Im wondering if that can work. I also do need help on my other page, the Trans Pecos Volcanic Field. I have many other pages to write, and do need some tips. Thanks in advance,

Blakedes2

Blakedes2 (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blakedes2, You don't need to ask here and on my talk page. I will respond to you on my page. Snowycats (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:21:48, 3 November 2020 review of submission by Islamgomaa1412


Islamgomaa1412 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Using Wikipedia to advertise or proselytise is not acceptable, and we will not accept articles with unreferenced biographical claims because we have been burnt on them before. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 19:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:06, 3 November 2020 review of draft by Serbelloni


thank you, I would like to understand : 1. if I inserted the citations well, as they do not appear at the bottom of the page 2. if I mentioned the key persons well (with the [[ ) and what the rule is 3. how to show the historical place I am writing about on a map

Serbelloni (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serbelloni: I've fixed some formatting issues present in the draft. See here. There should only be one {{reflist}} template on the page, in the References section. I've removed extraneous ones, and the references now appear at the bottom of the page. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:52, 3 November 2020 review of draft by DeepSeaMonster


Where in particular are references needed? Could you provide more concrete feedback? DeepSeaMonster (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeepSeaMonster, It's not where, it's a matter of adding them whatsoever. See WP:RS. Snowycats (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowycats - sorry, but that is not very helpful either. The draft has references, including a report by the Boston Landmarks Commission. Are there any specific statements that you believe should be backed by additional references? DeepSeaMonster (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeepSeaMonster, "*Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.* This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."
Once again: It's not where, it's a matter of adding them whatsoever. The issue is not WP:MINREF, it is WP:RS. Snowycats (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snowycats. Let's use common sense here: it is a building -- and a landmark at that. Are there any contentious points about the building's existence? Any particular statements on the draft that should be backed by reputable sources? Its notability? There's one reference to the city landmark commission and another to the architecture firm's page on the project. What exactly is missing from the page? If you want to add references for references' sake, be my guest, otherwise I don't see a valid argument against creating this page. DeepSeaMonster (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DeepSeaMonster: A building by itself is not notable. Humans create new structures of varying size every day, and we don't endeavor to create articles about every cozy duplex built in Edwalton, Nottingham. And virtually anything is a "landmark" so long as people passing through know to make a right or left once they get to it, just like any Tesco station. So mere existence is not a justification for an encyclopedia article to exist. Assuming all buildings are created equal, what separates this one from any other? Hopefully it would be that this structure has received in-depth coverage from reliable, independent, published sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. If that can't be established, then it seems like this is just another building like any other in the world, and may not warrant an encyclopedia article to exist in perpetuity. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: So which one is it then - notability or references? both? So far I've been thrown more regulation than actual help or feedback. Not the most welcoming of places. DeepSeaMonster (talk) 05:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeepSeaMonster Per WP:NBUILDING Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: Thanks for the reply - do you have any examples of what is considered significant/sufficient coverage? DeepSeaMonster (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeepSeaMonster These might be useful? [1], [2]. Theroadislong (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: Great - this is helpful. Thank you! DeepSeaMonster (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: I have revised the draft and added a few more references. DeepSeaMonster (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

10:09:03, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Namir El-Akabi CEO


may i know why the article was rejected? and what are the solutions to publish the article?


Namir El-Akabi CEO (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Namir El-Akabi CEO You were told why at the top of the draft. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or to post your resume. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. Wikipedia is only interested in what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14:09:32, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Seekbalance

Hi, I am new here and am hoping for some advice to make this article consistent with the "purpose of Wikipedia." I wrote the article as Olympia Devine is a notable author, and I think she should be represented on Wikipedia. I have read the Guide to writing your first article, Policies and guidelines and others. Please let me know how I can amend this article to read more encyclopedic and less promotional. Thank you. Seekbalance (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seekbalance: Maybe try these steps for your next attempt:
  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draft when you think it is ready for review. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article.

Note: I am not an admin and cannot say how "worse" it was therefore. You may want to have a look at WP:PEACOCK. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:13:18, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Broxigar2020


Hi,

I was wondering if you could review the decision to deny approval for the page 'Paul Doherty (politician)'?

The criteria for WP:BASIC states:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

There is now at least eight sources on the page that fall into the requirements on the first line. Furthermore the depth of coverage requirement appears met since the sources provide both quotes from the subject and in some cases an image of him to accompany it.

This appears to also satisfy the criteria for WP:NPOL:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Could you review or elaborate upon this for me please?

Kind Regards,

Broxigar2020

Broxigar2020 (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broxigar2020 As noted, failed political candidates do not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. That this person is quoted in the newspaper about various issues is not "significant coverage" of the person. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly.
  1. Irish News is a sound bite, not significant coverage of him. Same for the Belfast Live group mission piece, the Lenadoon shooting piece from same, the Belfast Telegraph piece, and the Irish Post piece.
  2. The Belfast Live garden piece is entirely stuff he says, and is not significant coverage.
  3. I can't find any evidence that the whitepapers cited have been widely cited by scholars; in any case he doesn't appear to show up on GScholar at all.
  4. His own political party is considered a primary source. Sources need to have no direct connexion to the subject.
  5. The Belfast Live elections piece is a name-drop, not significant coverage. Same for the volunteers piece.
In sum: Your sources are not reliable sources and thus cannot help for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 16:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:

The fact that he's an unsuccessful political candidate does not explicitly exclude him from the classifications of WP:NPOLITICIAN

While he may not satisfy the section:

Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

The following section I quoted:

Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Appears to be relevant in this case as it's obvious that a political figure is not necessarily an elected one and the number of articles in comparison to other local political figures is certainly more 'significant'.

In addition, the classification of "significant coverage" as you have linked doesn't appear to exclude or conflict the use quotations in the sources provided.

The definition from WP:GNG states:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The second sentence in the quoted text appears clearly relevant here whereby while the article isn't explicitly about the subject, the coverage is more than a trivial mention.

Furthermore there are a series of issues covered within these sources which, while they may be only a few lines, touch upon key contextual issues within the area.

1A. The Irish News piece clearly notes the subject as the founder of the charity, explains his background with it and the challenges they face with COVID-19. 1B. As stated above, the use of quotation's doesn't exclude or conflict with the definition stated in WP:GNG and considering these are used throughout the article I don't see how the qualify as only a 'sound bite'. 1A. In addition, the source on his opposition to paramilitary attacks clearly addresses the subject's position on the topic directly and in detail as required in the WP:GNG. This represents a key contextual position within the politics of Northern Ireland due to historical background, especially within West Belfast. For the context on this please read The Troubles. 2. Same as noted above in^. 3. The medical journals I included were primarily for source of his current profession. 4. I agree the SDLP source is a primary one. 5. The Belfast Live election coverage article is arguably one of the main sources from a political standpoint as it addresses another key topic directly and in detail, the section where he states "willing to go to Westminster" is one of the most contentious issues in Northern Ireland politics as it refers to differences in constitutional viewpoints in Northern Ireland, for the context please read the 'In Ireland' section of Abstentionism.

Apologies for not initially including the contextual information originally but I believe the this should explain why certain aspects are included as such.

Does the above information fit the WP:BASIC if not the WP:NPOL requirement?

Kind Regards, Broxigar2020

--Broxigar2020 (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: fix broken ping. @Broxigar2020: Pings only work if you sign your edit by typing four ~'s at the end. (In the toolabr above the edit window its the button right next to italics on the right side, like this: Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Broxigar2020: Hi there, I looked through the sources in the article and I can't find any that feel like they satisfy the significant coverage requirement. You've pointed out the Irish News piece, but unless I'm looking at the wrong article or if I'm missing pages, these are the only two details I learn about Doherty: he organised a festival and he's an SDLP representative. That's not in-depth by a long shot, and it's not independent, since it focusses largely on his own words. Interviews don't count toward notability. The sort of coverage I'd expect to see that qualifies as in-depth would include details like: birthdate; birth place; his life growing up; what university he attended; what military service he might have had; information about his political stance; criticism of his political stance; praise and criticism of his political work; etc. And no, not just one piece of data in each article, "significant coverage" means that a reporter sat down, did research, and wrote detailed content about the man himself. Hope that helps. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb:

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

The sources provided outline factual information as well as key political and social viewpoints, two of which I listed above with their context.

The definition of independence is listed as at WP:GNG is:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

All of these articles are not produced by the subject or someone affiliated with him. Thus from the definition Wikipedia has provided it is independent. I can't see it stated any where why the use of quotations would prevent it from being independent especially when it's common practice in news reporting.

The sources used also are not interviews, they're all articles on topics for which the subject is consulted in order to discuss them and as noted above.

Furthermore I don't think the level of detail you've outlined there is something that even available from the perspective of Northern Ireland politics when the likes of primary sources or social media is excluded.

As an example please find four Wikipedia pages of the elected officials from Northern Ireland from the biggest political parties:

Sinn Féin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_McGuigan (1 Primary source used) DUP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bradley (No sources used) SDLP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Catney (1 Primary source used) UUP - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbie_Butler (1 source used that has trivial mention)

While I'm clearly not arguing these are exemplar pages, the depth and information of the sources I have provided in the page created far outweigh these and outlines the fact the level of information you've listed from a Northern Ireland perspective doesn't have the same level of detail.

Especially when the definition for WP:GNG explicitly states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

Hope this again provides further context. While I'm not arguing any pages above should be taken down, I can't understand why the one I've created is denied while these permitted especially when if you take a larger example of political figures in Northern Ireland the page I wrote still outweighs most.

Kind Regards, Broxigar2020

--Broxigar2020 (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:52:16, 4 November 2020 review of submission by Weareme234


Weareme234 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:46:08, 4 November 2020 review of submission by 31.182.61.2

Why did you reject this page? Yes, it is about an arthouse film from a small country, but why is this article unworthy of being on Wikipedia? There are a huge number of similar articles. I have provided real links to authoritative local sites and one authoritative world site (imdb)

31.182.61.2 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not an authoritative site. It's user-contributed, which we do not allow as references. See WP:RS and WP:UGC. The mere existence of a film doesn't mean that it is notable. Notability is established by showing that the subject received significant (in depth) coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


November 5

00:37:19, 5 November 2020 review of submission by 2603:8081:500:F700:B99B:D01D:FF3D:8494


2603:8081:500:F700:B99B:D01D:FF3D:8494 (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:59, 5 November 2020 review of submission by 136.185.194.236

Please let me know what makes this article contrary to the Wikipedia policies. And suggest any edits. 136.185.194.236 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an advertisement. What is your connexion to KEN? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 05:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a corporate brochure and you've provided no references that would suggest it is notable in any way. See WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

06:53:19, 5 November 2020 review of draft by Rishibankim


I did not submit any article for publication in wikipedia as an independent article. My submission is a series of review of the original article titled "Mahatma Gandhi". I want my submission to be talked by wikifamily. Anyway, how do I submit my review and comments on an existing article ? RISHIBANKIM Rishibankim (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rishibankim To propose changes to an existing article, you should use that article's associated talk page. To increase the chances other editors will see your request, you should add a formal edit request tag to it(click for instructions). 331dot (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:32:49, 5 November 2020 review of submission by 31.182.61.2


31.182.61.2 (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their question was also answered in the discussion they opened above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:44:18, 5 November 2020 review of submission by Aassaf2020


Aassaf2020 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aassaf2020 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; I have deleted it as blatant promotion. Please read Your First Article for more information, and if you are associated with the person you wrote about, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:26:21, 5 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 24.102.77.7


I keep getting rejected for peacock terms and non-neutral language. Having reviewed this on Wikipedia's terms page I am still unclear as to what I am doing wrong.

24.102.77.7 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of promotion-by-overdetail? We don't need laundry lists of everything and everyone he works with or has done, just the most relevant ones. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:07:46, 5 November 2020 review of submission by Mdainko

I resubmitted a revised version 2 months ago. I made an attempt to remove all of the "Press Release" language. Do we know if it's being reviewed again already? If so, any idea when I may receive an answer? Or, do I need to do something further to trigger a new evaluation?

Please let me know.

Thanks, Matt

Mdainko (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


November 6

00:30:00, 6 November 2020 review of draft by FcoonerBCA


William Nickels Jr I'm hopeful to get published. FcoonerBCA (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FcoonerBCA. Thank you for your contribution. It is in the pool of drafts to be reviewed. It is unlikely to be published as-is, since it cites a single source, and that source mentions Nickels in only two sentences. The notability guideline (inclusion criteria) for people is, in a nutshell, "has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Two sentences does not constitute significant coverage. Wikipedia requires significant coverage so that we can write a whole biography rather than just a few sentences. We require multiple sources so that we can write a balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

03:24:27, 6 November 2020 review of submission by SCBC2940

I need help understanding the types of edits I need to make in order to have an article on the history of Second Calvary Baptist Church published as a Wikipedia article. The church has kept meticulous records regarding their 140+ year history. I will need guidance making the necessary edits for an article to be approved for publication. Thank you for your help.

SCBC2940 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

05:10:36, 6 November 2020 review of submission by Tuesdaymorning20


Sophie Santos is an author and has legit references as seen in the article.

Tuesdaymorning20 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:35:01, 6 November 2020 review of draft by Katikov


I have been trying to submit the Global Chess Festival entry. I did all modification according to your guidelines but it is still not accepted. Could you please give specific help on which sentence shall be modified. I also gave one more paragraph concerning year 2020. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Katikov (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Katikov, the draft was last reviewed back in March, you have not resubmitted it for another review. To do so you need to click the blue "Resubmit" button. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:19, 6 November 2020 review of draft by 2600:1700:7960:4F40:3D1D:5447:9411:213B


Hi, Just wondering what additional citations I may need for this article? Artist is referenced several times in Wikipedia articles as well as outside resources and is well known artist. Thanks

2600:1700:7960:4F40:3D1D:5447:9411:213B (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:44:07, 6 November 2020 review of submission by Erikgwagner

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia as an editor. I have been trying to get an article published about the company that I work for. We're a fast growing startup with an interesting history and technology. I have been rejected a couple of times, and I have attempted to fix the issues, but before I try to resubmit, I was hoping someone could give the article a quick look and let me know if there are any issues that they see? I have added a significant amount of references from major publications about the company and it's history. I have marked that I do work for the organization in the submission, but I have tried to be as unbiased as possible and quote or paraphrase article content when possible. Thank you in advance!

EW 15:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikgwagner (talk • contribs)

Erikgwagner Your use of the term "startup" is a strong indicator that your company, as the reviewer noted, does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Only well established companies that independent reliable sources give significant coverage to do. Your sources are almost exclusively press releases; press releases and other announcements of routine business transactions like the raising of capital or release of a product are not independent and as such do not establish notability. Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable sources completely unconnected with your company have chosen on their own to say about it. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:57:41, 6 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Vlonekleon



Vlonekleon (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vlonekleon: You didn't ask a question, but it seems to me you erroneously think Wikipedia is a social networking site, considering the title of your draft is Draft:Itsvlone, vs. Draft:Vlone or Draft:Kleon Seda. Anyhow, Wikipedia is not a social networking site, it is an encyclopedia, and as such, we only care about people who can meet our notability criteria. See WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

22:20:45, 6 November 2020 review of submission by Segzzymania1


Segzzymania1 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Segzzymania1, We can't help you without a question Snowycats (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

09:30:33, 7 November 2020 review of draft by Daniela De Rentiis


Good Morning, may be i submited this article in the wrong way, I'm not sure. I did not copied it from ERIAC page, this article is the translation of a wiki pedia page in italian language: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santino_Spinelli. I tried to make a literal translation of the italian page. I'm the translator. And I gave the text to ERIAC too, because I think this is an exhaustive bio of Mr. Spinelli Santino. Please let me know how to fix this problem. I wrote that this draft is a translation from a page in italian language. May be I did not wrote it in the right place. Daniela De Rentiis


Daniela De Rentiis (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniela De Rentiis: Now we've got a real problem. Assuming that the italian article is realy the source:
  • The italian Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GNU FDL, both of which come with obligations. https://eriac.org/members/santino-spinelli/ does not currently has any form of copyright statement on it, and as such fails the requirements of the license.
  • The draft itself has attributions, and as such is AFAIK still in compilance with the license.
The real problem now it the other website. I am not an expert at identifying what came first. If the order of events is as described here, the website admin of eriac.org now realy has something to do, and it is probbably better for him and us if he were able to do it before monday. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12:15:58, 7 November 2020 review of submission by 91.140.26.171


91.140.26.171 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anon: I responded to your non-question a few sections above. Short story: Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:00, 7 November 2020 review of submission by RoachPeter

I have today (November 7th 2020) resubmitted the above article after an earlier rejection. Unfortunately I accidentally submitted it twice. Is it possible to delete the submission entitled "The Priory Grammar School for Boys" but leave in the correct submission entitled "The Priory Grammar School for Boys, Shrewsbury"? Thank you. RoachPeter (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RoachPeter:  Done Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

04:30:55, 8 November 2020 review of submission by 2607:FCC8:6EC6:6000:D1D2:DE5B:3C63:FA4A


2607:FCC8:6EC6:6000:D1D2:DE5B:3C63:FA4A (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nothing even remotely looking like WP:NPERSON or WP:NACTOR. Instagra is not a relable source. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:56:05, 8 November 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by AleksandrAAdamov


The article was declined because of "using PEACKOCK terms", which I never used anywhere in the article. This article not being accepted may very well be an expression of Russophobia that is extremely common these days, and not rational thinking. Please take a look.

AleksandrAAdamov (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AleksandrAAdamov I have accepted the article and made a few minor changes. Please try to add some works in English to the Bibliography, I found several good ones with a Google Scholar search. Some of the templates you have used directly from the Russian Wikipedia, they need to be changed to the English equivalents. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09:07:43, 8 November 2020 review of submission by Untr0


Untr0 (talk) 09:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:16:24, 8 November 2020 review of draft by Robert Kerber


This article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hunting_Rifle_(film) has been declined submission by user Gpkp for "lacking reliable sources". My question to be more precise which information/section should be verified was not answered. I've given my sources (IMDB and JMDB plus 2 film books) for release date etc. in the sections Bibliography and External links. Precise information which section(s) should be explicitly referenced would be appreciated. PS. I've been doing this for 10 years now so I'm not a beginner. Thank you. Robert Kerber (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kerber (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not considered to be a reliable source as it is user-editable. 331dot (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:33, 8 November 2020 review of submission by Vit-ali-yan


Victor Yanin 13:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


I tend to disagree that the list of books and journals does not meet the notability requirements, see the list below:

  • TechCrunch editorial,
  • BetaKit editorial,
  • Inc Russia (chapter of the international independent business media),
  • VC.ru (we may call it Techcrunch of Russia, it's editor's article describes the venture-backed startup stories),
  • If24.ru (it's Investment Foresight media in Russian, independent media with editor's interview describes the venture-backed startup story as well, the media has got around half million visits a month) - added,
  • Crunchbase company's data (seems to be verifiable and legit) - added.

I hope the overall list with addition of computer science books meets notabilty requirements:

  • Handbook of Multimedia Information Security: Techniques and Applications,
  • Jump Start Web Performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vit-ali-yan (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:18, 8 November 2020 review of submission by Serbelloni


Dear Helpdesk, can you explain to me : 1. whether I made a correct link to the article Civitella d'Agliano in Wikipedia Italian? 2. how to add a Google map under the Location chapter? 3. how to edit my style in order to improve the article?

many thanks to you


Serbelloni (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:29:18, 8 November 2020 review of draft by WikiWoggle


Hi, I'm not sure why my submission got flagged as an ad. I've stated plain facts from articles published by verified independent publications. Some were event-based while others were interviews. Please let me know where I'm going wrong with it, because there's hardly any content in the article either.

WikiWoggle (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWoggle It was considered an advertisement because it does little more than tell about the person and what they do. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Press releases, routine announcements, brief mentions and other primary sources do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentioned in the sources goes into significant coverage on the person - https://www.ft.com/content/38d02382-f809-11e4-962b-00144feab7de . He's also the son of Jim Blanchard, who has a Wikipedia page as well - Jim Blanchard

Although Anthem's Anthem Vault isn't related to his father's company, his family history with gold and libertarianism and his current work with gold-backed cryptocurrencies is of notability in my opinion. Please let me know if I can frame it better or if it's still not notable enough. I will stop pursuing this draft. WikiWoggle (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People do not merit articles because their family members do. Most reviewers want to see at least three sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

16:53:50, 8 November 2020 review of submission by 2601:249:880:AB30:1903:8276:47BE:F5B3

Gowri Nadella is a professional model. She has been published in several different magazines and newspapers. The content within the Wikipedia article is factual and supported by the sources I cited. In addition, these sources are all neutral third party and reliable/ well-known publications that have interviewed Gowri or wrote about Gowri. Her career is widespread and is represented in all forms of traditional media. 2601:249:880:AB30:1903:8276:47BE:F5B3 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about her, showing how she meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Interviews do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and Wikitia.com is not a reliable source and neither is Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:22, 8 November 2020 review of submission by Publicspeaker2020

please delete the previous article from wikipedia

Publicspeaker2020 (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicspeaker2020: It is unclear what you mean by "previous article". If you're requesting that we delete Draft:Maharashtra Students Welfare Association, there's no need for that at present. If it is not edited for six months, it will be deleted then. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyphoidbomb: Note that this request came minutes after a different account with a similarly-patterned username created the same article in mainspace, now up for PROD (looks like clear A7-bait to me, but I'll leave it alone for now). --Finngall talk 21:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Finngall: Noted! Added to watchlist. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:20:52, 8 November 2020 review of submission by 2603:8081:500:F700:598C:C0F0:7E34:AFD2


2603:8081:500:F700:598C:C0F0:7E34:AFD2 (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question, so we can't help. It looks like draft contributors failed to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:37, 8 November 2020 review of submission by 2603:8081:500:F700:598C:C0F0:7E34:AFD2


2603:8081:500:F700:598C:C0F0:7E34:AFD2 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=987729127"