Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script

Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

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

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

July 9[edit]

07:53:44, 9 July 2020 review of submission by JuergenDoran[edit]

Dear Loksmythe,

thank you for reviewing my first article "PHYNE". I was wondering why you see my sources as unreliable? Beforehand, I looked at other fashion brands, as they used a lot of articles. That's exactly what I did. I would like to understand, how I can improve the reliability of the sources? As the goal of a Wikipedia Article is to be objective, I only wrote down information, which is objective.

Kind regards Juergen DOran JuergenDoran (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@JuergenDoran: First of all, we're gonna notify @Loksmythe: of this discussion. I'm not entirely sure on the reability of the sources, Howewer, not all appear to be significant coverage of the subject. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Good morning @Loksmythe:, I wanted to ask you whether you already had time to review my question?

Kind regards Sebastian

08:14:57, 9 July 2020 review of submission by Ralamad[edit]

I have created the first draft which I had copied from and added references, which got rejected. I then created a new draft, all re-written by me. How do i know its under review? how do i publish it? Or if it gets approved it will be published automatically?

Ralamad (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Ralamad I have added the submission template to allow you to submit the draft for review. However, you have no independent reliable sources to support the content of the draft, so if you were to submit it now, it would be rejected quickly. A Wikipedia article should primarily summarize what independent sources state; please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 11:42:37, 9 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tycheana[edit]

Hi, my submission - Draft:Kapil Sankhla - was rejected by reviewer DGG, and the reason cited was 'the cases do not seem important enough to justify an article', which I feel is unfair. In fact one of the cases, Gopal Goyal Kanda, is also mentioned on Wikipedia on the page Gopal Goyal Kanda, which proves that it is noteworthy. Every bit of information that I have put is verified through information provided in well-known Indian tabloids, all of which are listed on Wikipedia, and if the cases would not have been as well-known, they would not have received as much coverage in the media. The fact that I managed to find so many independent references is indicative of the fact that the issues made headlines at the time.

My presumption on coming across this person on media was that a lawyer's notability is best proved through his cases, especially those that have found mention in all the leading tabloids and also on some of the Wikipedia pages. That is why I have drafted the content as per the info that is readily available on the Internet under several newspapers which are also listed on Wikipedia. Requesting guidance from seasoned Wikipedians, veterans and reviewers on how to best resolve the matter, thanks & regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Tycheana (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

12:19:44, 9 July 2020 review of submission by Dwaynex18[edit]

Dwaynex18 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Are local publications not considered as good citable sources? Does the subject matter need to be written by big publications that are mostly western to be considered a good source? MPL is big in Southeast Asia and just because it doesn't happen in the west doesn't mean it is not fit for Wikipedia or else Wikipedia is only for western stuff written for by big western publications. I now see Wikipedia to be more exclusive to western stuff only and not to localized stuff. MPL is mentioned by ABS-CBN news and have been broadcasted by its ABS-CBN sports channel in the Philippines and that's just our country not mentioning other southeast Asian countries with this esport happening. Mind you, ABS-CBN is the biggest media company in the Philippines. Or maybe, it has to be written by the biggest media company in the west to be allowed in Wikipedia. My problem is you put it to stop even if there can be room for improvement and given a chance.

15:56:43, 9 July 2020 review of draft by Agneslesti1[edit]

Hello, I have attempted to create the above page - Draft:Hopster - for Hopster, the preschool entertainment platform, however, it got rejected. I believe I've met the guidelines at and but if there's anything specific I'd need to change/add, please let me know so I can make these changes. The company is recognised in the children's media industry, hence the industry-recognised article citations, and it has been nominated for the Children's BAFTA in 2018 and 2019 so I believe the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. It is also referenced on a number of different Wikipedia pages, such as these:

I have attempted to contact the reviewers (DGG and CommonsDelinker) directly, however I can’t see a way to talk to them. Could you please help? Thank you in advance for your assistance, Agnes

Agneslesti1 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 16:10:28, 9 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by B.n1995[edit]

Hi! I just created the article "Lukas Meyer" and it says it has copyrighted content in it, but I am not sure which part is meant here cause I think there are no copyrighted parts. Could anybody help me here?


B.n1995 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@B.n1995: Since it appears that that was already deleted from the history, I can no longer check that. I will therefore inform the deleting admin @Nthep: of this section. I can howewer see from the page history that 909 bytes where removed, which is about a lengthely paragraph. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) B.n1995 Significant text was copied from as should not have been done. But another editor has removed the copyrighted text, and an admin has hidden the revisions that included it in the history, so the issue is now fixed. The current issue with Draft:Lukas Meyer is the need for additional sources, and particularly for reliable sources which are Independent and include significant coverage of Meyer. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Great. Thanks for the help. I added some more sources now. Hope that helps.


17:09:21, 9 July 2020 review of submission by JosiahMarist2[edit]

I don't understand why my article was declined. The reason that was given was not true as this person has been covered in Forbes (twice),, TV coverage, local news stations, and other entrepreneurship websites (, etc.) It is evident that this entrepreneur has the coverage to have a wikipedia page. Please fix this mistake made by the editor. thank you!

JosiahMarist2 (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Brendan Cox (Entrepreneur)
JosiahMarist2 I went to review the sources to respond here, and decided that, after some clean up, they were sufficient, so I have accepted the draft into the main article space. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

18:20:25, 9 July 2020 review of submission by[edit]

New additions: news source for Egyptian actor and for tour guide. -- (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC) (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 18:52:05, 9 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Whistleblower84[edit]

My article, "Mental Illness was rejected.  The reason given was that it was not consistent with the mission of Wikipedia.  I was hoping to get more detail, so that I can review and resubmit the article, if that is appropriate.

Whistleblower84 (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblower84 Copying and pasting an organization's description of itself is indeed not in keeping with the mission of Wikipedia. That mission is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about article subjects, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, the definition of a notable organization. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this organization, please read and comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 20:39:39, 9 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Krupa Bhalerao[edit]

Krupa Bhalerao (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The draft was deleted as a blatant hoax. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 10[edit]

04:18:03, 10 July 2020 review of submission by 2409:4052:91B:5D9B:4DA5:AEF1:FAE5:FD3A[edit]

2409:4052:91B:5D9B:4DA5:AEF1:FAE5:FD3A (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I am going to invite @Robert McClenon: to this discussion. Please note that is not considered a reliable source because its user-generated. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Victor Schmidt mobil, User:Goutamrazpurohit - Please log in. It is difficult to engage in discussion with an IP address. Do you have a specific question? When I declined the draft the first time, I said that it did not satisfy television notability, and that it used IMDB as a source, and IMDB is not considered a reliable source. It was then resubmitted less than 24 hours later, with little change, and still using an unreliable source. If a draft is declined, and you do not understand why, it is better to ask questions or engage in discussion than to just hit the resubmit button. You still have not asked a question, and are still just hitting the button to submit a blank request for help. Maybe if you ask a question, we might try to answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

05:27:37, 10 July 2020 review of submission by Thespiansapien[edit]

Hi. I made changes after being declined for lack of reliable sources on June 14. Am I missing a 'subst:submit' line somewhere on the draft? Is this draft even visible for review? I'm so confused as this is my first article. Thank you for any help!

Thespiansapien (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Thespiansapien: Its currently in the rewiew pool. I'm sure that a reviewer will look at it earlier or later. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

05:45:52, 10 July 2020 review of submission by Getmymettle[edit]

I published my first article regarding my company and my article was rejected on the ground of a promotional basis. It was said that I was promoting something in the article. I would like to know how can I improve my article and what steps do I need to take in order to get my article published. Kindly revert ASAP. Getmymettle (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Getmymettle: first of all, if its "your" company, you need to read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the required disclosures. Then please understand that we dont operate on deadlines. Wikipedia is mainly written by volunteers doing that in their (sometimes rare) free time. Unfortunally, I am not an admin, so I cannot see the deleted page's contents. I am therefore going to ping Explicit as the deleting admin. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, it was horrible, stinking of self-praise and peacock words and marketing bullsh*t that would have shamed Prof. Harold Hill! Even if there had not been blatant COI involved, it would have been eligible for speedy deletion as blatant promotion and completely unsalvageable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

08:14:04, 10 July 2020 review of draft by[edit]

I need help because my article keeps being deleted and i don't understand why. The person is notable, i have put in citations. (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

... but none of them appear to met the criteria at WP:NPERSON, i.e. they are reliable independent and have significant coverage. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

08:17:14, 10 July 2020 review of draft by Fenojoy[edit]

Dear Sir, I try to publish a page about my hospital. I am not a technical person, but still my passion towards listing in wikipedia made me to find and solve problems relating to the submission. At present my page is declined as the references sourses are not verifiable. Can you please help me to complete my page?

Fenojoy (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Fenojoy Please review the paid editing policy and conflict of interest for information on required disclosures(you kinda sorta do so already on your use page, but it could be clearer). Your draft is nothing but an advertisement for your hospital, detailing its offerings. Wikipedia articles do not just merely tell about the subject. They should primarily summarize only what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about your hospital, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what any organization wants to say about itself, only in what others say about it. That does not include press releases, the hospital website, staff interviews, routine announcements, or other primary sources. Please see Your First Article for more information.
Assuming you work on the draft and it eventually passes review, you won't be able to directly edit the article further, you will need to make edit requests. I'm sure that a Wikipedia article sounds like a great way to get the word out about your hospital, but that is a promotional purpose and not permitted. Also note that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. There are good reasons to not want one. Any information, good or bad, about your hospital can be in an article about it so long as it appears in an independent reliable source. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 12:46:49, 10 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 199nah[edit]

199nah (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@199nah: please copy stuff from elsewhere onto Wikipedia. Even if that external site belongs to you, 99% of the texts found on the internet are not siutable for Wikipedia. Please write in your own words, based on what reliable sources say. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 17:38:24, 10 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Tycheana[edit]

Which Indian tabloids are regarded as noteworthy? Hi, I wanted to seek your opinion on the Indian tabloids that are regarded as noteworthy enough to be used as sources on Wikipedia. When it comes to news reports on the current events of the day, can India Today, Business Standard, Economic Times and Financial Express be regarded as reliable and reputed sources? This is not about interviews or editorials, just news reports. Also Press Trust of India - can it be treated as a reliable source? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Tycheana (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tycheana. "Noteworthy" is not a term Wikipedians use with regard to the acceptability of sources. A noteworthy newspaper is not necessarily an acceptable source, and one that isn't noteworthy is not necessarily unacceptable. The tabloid press is widely regarded as a very poor quality source, in some cases a prohibited one. However, none of India Today, the Business Standard, The Economic Times, or The Financial Express are tabloid newspapers. They are generally reliable for the sorts of things newspapers are reliable for. The same goes for press agencies like Press Trust of India.
A newspaper may be a reliable source for a statement without being significant coverage of a topic. Just because someone is mentioned in or quoted in newspapers, doesn't mean they are a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Worldbruce - so it also means that if I use the 4 Indian newspapers that you have mentioned along with Times of India, they should be treated as reliable sources by reviewers...? The subject here is a lawyer, so he is mentioned in the source page along with whatever statements he might have made pertaining to the case. Some of these cases themselves have been discussed in other related Wikipedia pages. For any lawyer to find repeated mention with regard to specific cases, can this be used to prove notability?
I also wanted to ask about interview intros - while interview content is out of bounds and not accepted here, is it okay to use facts like education and location which are specified only in the intro and are not a part of the Q&A that follows? This is the link - - wherein the first paragraph mentions his education and location. So can I use it only for these 2 points? The interview content I have not used anywhere in the draft and definitely not as a reference since it presents the individual's view and hence does not qualify as a reliable source. Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 05:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tycheana: Reliable is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one; it is only one of the necessary conditions. I looked at the 14 citations of news organizations in the draft. They're all reliable, but none is significant coverage. They do nothing to demonstrate notability. They're a form of WP:CITEBOMBING - useless junk that obscure any good sources in the draft. Notability is not inherited, so it's irrelevant whether the cases are notable or not. It's also irrelevant whether the cases or the lawyer are mentioned in other Wikipedia articles.
I don't see any of the characteristics of a reliable source in, so I wouldn't cite it for anything. Interviews in otherwise reliable publications (e.g. The Hindu) are reliable sources, and may be cited for many things. If an interviewee says "My father was a civil servant" or "I live in New Delhi", we would take them at their word unless there were a known controversy about the matter. If they say "I graduated top of my class", we wouldn't state that in WP:WIKIVOICE, although we might say it with inline attribution, like "He said in an interview with foo newspaper that he graduated top of his class." The problem with interviews is that they are primary sources, and if there is little or no analysis by the interviewer then they lack independence. In practice, most interviews people try to use do nothing to help establish notability for those reasons. The introductory paragraph(s) of an interview are rarely of value. Often one can tell that they've been copied from the subject's CV or a similar non-independent source, and are not the product of independent investigation and analysis by the interviewer. If the underlying source is non-independent, then just cite the underlying source. In such a case, citing the interview as if it were independent and notability-demonstrating would be misleading. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Worldbruce, sincere apologies for responding late. 2 families in the neighborhood tested COVI positive and that put all of us in a major spin, basically sanitizing, rigorous testing and then shopping as there is talk of the residential complex being declared a containment zone.
So what do you suggest for my draft going ahead? Today I am going to look for sources that have more detailed mention. For that matter, would a copy of the judgment as declared by the Supreme Court and mentioning the lawyer in question help? Thanks, best regards, Tycheana (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Tycheana: If I were you, I would write off the draft as an idea for an article that didn't pan out, and move on to a different topic. You may, of course, keep looking for significant coverage, but the more effort you sink into it, the less dispassionately you'll be able to view it. You'll see what you want to see, not what everyone else sees. For perspective, study the deepest sources in articles about lawyers like Robert Garran, Ángela Acuña Braun, and Laura de Force Gordon. Entire books, chapters, journal articles, or encyclopedia entries have been written about them. Some editors will accept several meaty paragraphs, or a page, as significant coverage, but you'll need a lot more than mere mentions. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

18:08:56, 10 July 2020 review of draft by Ayajood2020[edit]

Ayajood2020 (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This user was blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user, and draft deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

18:11:55, 10 July 2020 review of draft by Alexmenocal[edit]

Hi, I was notified that this page that I drafted is tagged for speedy deletion due to noncompliance w/ G11 (promotion):

Is there any way to know what specific elements of the content are objectionable? This page is very similar to many other biographies of living woman artists. Thanks for your help!

Alexmenocal (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Alexmenocal (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The speedy delete was declined. What puffery left is "award-winning". Instead of using an adjective like this, simply state what award was won with a link to Wikipedia page on the award. But since this is about the mother, there may be no reason to mention it at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

20:15:23, 10 July 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA[edit]

The last time i submitted this article they said it must meet the criteria of WP:NMUSIC, i read it and it says at least it must have a single that has certified gold, there is a single that has certified gold on that article, so i want to know if it the article is good enough to be established, if not can you please tell me what's left that i didn't do. SONGEZO SA (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, SONGEZO SA there is no source cited in he Discoggraphy section to confirm that "No Ties" was certified Gold, or that Tshego was the lead singer on that single. But if those can be sources, thisu may be over the liner. It could use some cleanup, but gold is gold. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

July 11[edit]

05:06:55, 11 July 2020 review of submission by Dropsofjune[edit]

I cannot see the Submit for Review button. Dropsofjune (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dropsofjune. I've added to your draft a banner that includes a "Submit your draft for review!" button. Before you submit it I recommend that you read Your first article and study some of the materials, linked from the banner, about how to improve the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

06:52:23, 11 July 2020 review of draft by Sebi1990[edit]

I created the "Draft:1975 Cupa României Final" and my submission was declined, the argument gave being: "Article has been create-protected due to multiple submissions by a now-blocked user."... I don't understand 1.It says that if I don't resolve this issue, the draft will not be accepted but what can I do to fix this problem? 2.For me it doesn't make any sense, if a bad user or a troll creates badly a page, that page will forever be banned for creation? I put five good sources and a match report, which is better than most Romanian Cup finals have, but I can't control what happened in the past with "those multiple submissions by a now-blocked user". 3.Let's say a young footballer's page is created by such a user, the page is deleted, but later the footballer becomes the best footballer in the world, he won't have a wikipedia page?

Sebi1990 (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sebi1990 I would suggest that you contact the reviewer directly to discuss your concerns. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

11:41:50, 11 July 2020 review of submission by 199nah[edit]

I've created a wiki page for an artist 199nah, but I got rejected the talk page by an admin said the stuffs are 99% copied from internet . biography is same for the artist and everything else is not plagarized. please allow me to copy the biography cause the artist have same bio on all profiles and is the signature for the artist please allow me use the same official bio 199nah (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

199nah Wikipedia is not a place to host official bios. This is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about subjects that meet our special definition of notability; in this case, the definition of a notable musician. We are not interested in what a subject wants to say about themselves or in what their "official" bio is.
If you are attempting to write about yourself, please review the autobiography policy. If you aren't, you will need to change your username at Special:GlobalRenameRequest. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

12:41:02, 11 July 2020 review of draft by[edit] (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No new sources or content have been added since this was decline on 1 July 2020. Resubmitting without addressing the comments of past reviewers only wastes the tiem of everyone involved. There need to be multiple published independent and reliable sources, each of which discusses the subject in some depth to demonstrate Notability. Please understand that if Jaiden Animations is not in fact notable, no amount of rewriting or of adding sources with trivial mentions can create notability. If you want to continue working on this, please find, and add to the article several such independent sources with significant coverage. This means not interviews with the subject, not press releases or stories based on them, not fan pages, not things from Jaiden Animations's close associates, and not brief passing mentions, even in reliable sources. Each source should include at least several paragraphs about Jaiden Animations. Pl erase then add a note to the talk pageDraft talk:Jaiden Animations identifying the three to five source you think best demonstrate notability. Asking a reviewer to go through thirty sources again is a bit much. Again, do not resubmit for re-review without working oin these issues. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, the draft is now written from a specific point in time, writing of events in 2019 as being in the future. It should be up to date, and also written so that if accepted and not edited for 5-10 years, it would still make sense. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

18:16:04, 11 July 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA[edit]

Can you please tell me what should i do if it's not good enough, because i did what they said it must do SONGEZO SA (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

SONGEZO SA, The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
SONGEZO SA, As one recording has been certified gold, confirmed by a reliable source, this article fulfills WP:NMUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles point 3. I have therefore accepted it, the views of Amkgp to the contrary notwithstanding. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
See also #20:15:23, 10 July 2020 review of submission by SONGEZO SA above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 12[edit]

02:32:04, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Dviaboy[edit]

How is that not for Wikipedia that is a soccer tournament Dviaboy (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dviaboy. If you're asking about Draft:2020-21 FA Cup, the only source it cites doesn't mention that edition of the competition (it's instead about the 2019-20 FA Cup). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Do not try to create an article about something until it has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

03:50:56, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Julie Conteh[edit]

this page is not for promotion purpose it is strictly the biography of the Gospel Musician Israel whose work is well appreciated by people from around the world and this is intend for people to know more about his background, please accept this page, you once blocked my other account and asked me to create a new one which i did again. please note that this is not for money making purpose. Julie Conteh (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User blocked by Ymblanter for WP:NPA or WP:HARASS. @Julie Conteh: Note that you dont need to make money to promote something. For an article (not yust "page", WP:NOTSOCIAL) to be created sucessfully, it would require multiple reliable independent sources that cover the subject in some depth. Please dont try to evade this block, as it is not allowed for this type of block. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

04:17:31, 12 July 2020 review of draft by PrittyKitty219[edit]

PrittyKitty219 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi there,

My submission was declined due to a lack of verifiable resources. I listed several websites at the end of the article...Was that not the correct way in which to list resources?

PrittyKitty219 IMDB is not considered a reliable source here because it is user-editable. You should not merely list websites, but make actual citations for the content of the article. Please see this introductory page to referencing for more information. The content of your article needs to be supported by independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress. 331dot (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

07:17:45, 12 July 2020 review of submission by ABC23341[edit]

Hello, is there any way to speed up review of a newly created article (besides attaching it to a wiki project?). I have been waiting for this article to be reviewed for many weeks now: Draft:Antony Dapiran

ABC23341 (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

ABC23341 There is nothing that you can do to "jump the line" or otherwise speed up the process. As noted on the submission template, "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,582 pending submissions waiting for review." You can use this time to perhaps work further on your draft to perhaps attempt to make it more likely a reviewer will notice it. Reviewers are volunteers, who do what they can when they can, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

However, the time span seems to be getting longer rather than shorter. It used to say that it might be up to 4 weeks, but no we are already at 7 weeks...ABC23341 (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

ABC23341 That only means that new drafts are coming in faster than reviewers can review them. That can't be helped, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

08:39:17, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Compulogger[edit]

I posted a request for help on 4 July, and have not had a response. Therefore I posted a message on Chris Toutman's talk page. In his reply he admitted that his judgement is subjective, and he suggested that I ask another editor for an opinion.

I challenged his argument that the subject of the article might be notable if he were dead. I don't see any logic in that argument, and I think it is offensive.

I challenged his argument that "stuff the subject wrote doesn't count". Is this a general argument that would mean that writers don't count, and should not be the subject of Wikipedia articles?

He also expresses the subjective opinion that AAAI Fellows are not notable, because the AAAI Society is not notable in his opinion. This is a subjective argument.

Therefore I am requesting another opinion, preferrably from an administrator with knowledge of the subject of the article. Compulogger (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Compulogger What the subject wrote does not establish that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Only independent reliable sources with significant coverage can do that. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Compulogger, the notability of a writer is generally demonstrated not by listing what the writer has written, but by showing that other, independent people, have published reviews, analyses, or other comments on the work of the writer in reliable sources. Shakespeare is notable not because he wrote many plays and poems, but because many other people have written very extensively about those plays and poems, to take one obvious example. These days a person can easily self-publish huge volumes of writing that no one else will ever take any note of. Such people are not notable, while writers whose work has been the subject of significant comment usually are. see WP:NAUTHOR. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

15:43:53, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Desynomusic[edit]

Desynomusic (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Desynomusic, The draft has been rejected and the current version will not be considered as it serves only promotion of the person with no notability and reliable sources ~ Amkgp 💬 17:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

15:55:03, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Jawwadkhan08[edit]

Jawwadkhan08 (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Jawwadkhan08, Well, I imagine you wish to know why it was rejected and is suggested for deletion. Thsi is on your talk page, but I will reproduce it here. "The reason left by Amkgp was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not a place for WP:PROMOTION"
I have linked but not, I think, pinged the rejecting editor. You may wish to discuss it further on their own talk page, but it just looks like an attempt at advertising stuff too me. Fiddle Faddle 16:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Jawwadkhan08, The draft is not notable as it is a product promotion which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Also, please note that the user is a suspected sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khan tabrez ~ Amkgp 💬 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

16:52:44, 12 July 2020 review of draft by Umran alhaja[edit]

I need to add logo to my article and pics but always the system denied it and i dont know the reason i need some help to puplic my article for Jebus Museum but i dont know excatly how and where i can put the referances or how i can use them

Umran alhaja (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Umran alhaja: try to upload directely to Wikikmedia commons. As for references, you put them directely after the content they support, like this:[1]. One note aside, many of your sources dont appear to be independent. Please try to use more independent sources]]. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Umran alhaja, I thought you might benefit from a substantial commentary, which I have left on your draft in addition to Victor's thoughts here
Thank you for your hard work. There is more to do Fiddle Faddle 17:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Example reference title". Retrieved 2020-07-12.

18:13:55, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Articlecreator1234[edit]

Articlecreator1234 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Articlecreator1234: Try to find more reliable sources. Youtube (Music), Deezer or Spotify any other user-generated site arent considered one. Note that this draft originally has already been rejected before, so I suggest you take alook at WP:AMOUNT. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

21:09:24, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Prsatran[edit]

Why would you reject an article by a bestselling African-American female author with references from The New York Times and Simon & Schuster among others? You took no time to decide this person didn't deserve a wikipedia page when she has published five books and dozens of articles in national magazines. I don't even know how to address this.

Prsatran (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Prsatran, The reviewer who declined it has not rejected it. They have pushed it back to you for further work. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. So please do that work Fiddle Faddle 21:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Prsatran, I have looked at your draft. It needs work. I've left a comment on it and tried to validate the references.
No-one suggested creating an article was easy. If you would like it to be accepted you have top prove that the person passes the criteria here. Please remember that people are here to help you, and that they have feelings too. Fiddle Faddle 21:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

21:47:51, 12 July 2020 review of submission by Prisencolin[edit]

Prisencolin (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

21:47:51, 12 July 2020 review of submission by MexicanKennedy[edit]

MexicanKennedy (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@MexicanKennedy: Your submission is currently in the awaiting review. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Sorry I was participating in the women of color edit-a-thon and my zoom timed out and I could not return. This is my first time editing Wikipedia. I hope I am doing everything correct. I am interested in helping Wikipedia. I speak Spanish and English. Let me know how else I can help. Thank you. MexicanKennedy (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC).

July 13[edit]

00:54:30, 13 July 2020 review of submission by MelissaJeanT[edit]

I'd like to have the submission reviewed again. I was hired not to promote the firm, but to ensure that the language and content be unbiased and factual as members of the firm were too close to the content and unable to write in a neutral tone. I have removed and adjusted language that can be misconstrued as boastful or opinionated and only stated facts that are supported by external sources and pages within wikipedia. The original submission was written to match examples of other firms drawn from live pages. However, I am seeking additional help and a second opinion from someone who is more familiar with the level of neutrality needed for a first submission.

MelissaJeanT (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi MelissaJeanT The fundamental problem is that none of the cited sources are simultaneously; independent of the firm, discuss the firm itself in significant depth and detail, and are published by reliable sources. For example all of the cases mentioned are sourced from the trial records, (primary sources). All they prove are that the firm exists and was involved, but tens of thousands of law firms are involved in millions of legal proceedings all around the world, so that in itself is of no real significance. Court records in any event almost never contain anything significant about the law firms involved. What you need to find is serious journalistic coverage about the firm itself, but excluding press releases, interviews or any other material originating from the firm itself or it's agents or representatives. If you can't find at least three such sources no article about the firm can be accepted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

02:28:03, 13 July 2020 review of submission by[edit]

I have rewritten the article to conform to encyclopedic guidelines.... (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, next time you should submit it for consideration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

03:55:02, 13 July 2020 review of draft by Cory Gordon[edit]

Hi. I included 3 references, including a front page Washington Post article that broke this story? What is not credible about this? Thank you. Cory Gordon (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Cory Gordon, please don't ask for help aggressively. While it ought not to prejudice people against your draft we are all real people who volunteer here.
I have left you a couple of comments on your draft Fiddle Faddle 13:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

04:34:33, 13 July 2020 review of submission by JaredT041199[edit]

JaredT041199 (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to create an article for Eiji Hanawa but it got rejected, so i tried to improve it but it still got rejected, so what do i do?

JaredT041199 Your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further, as it appears the person does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Please review the information left by the reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

05:00:22, 13 July 2020 review of submission by MichaelDubley[edit]


I would like to re-submit the following page as all wiki-editors advice for the page has been followed. I have contacted all three wiki-editors to show them the changes and they are content with the changes. Please see the below for what changes were made and who suggested them.

The Drover's wife - Required more reputable references are included. Hemmersbach Rhino Force has many articles by legitimate German journalism organizations that have now been included.

Lapablo - Required that the tone of the article is changed to be wiki-appropriate. I have edited sentences that are not in the correct wiki tone and removed any content that appeared promotional.

On top of the above, I have copied the page of a similiar organisation IAPF as this served as a good template for what accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks very much for your consideration.

Kind regards, Michael. MichaelDubley (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

08:17:35, 13 July 2020 review of submission by Anirudh 2057[edit]

Anirudh 2057 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

13:51:15, 13 July 2020 review of submission by Adpb[edit]

Dear Reviewer, apologies, unsure if I had properly made this request previously.

I would like to request a re-review based on the following changes made to address the previous review comments/concerns/issues and to request advise if any further changes are required for the biography’s acceptance.

1) Comment: “Insufficient improvements since it was sent for incubation.” – Changes made: The biography has been redrafted.

2) Issues: “WP:PROMO issues” – Changes made: References have been organized to show/include reputed newspaper articles.

3) Concerns: “WP:NPOV concerns due to author's COI[1]” – Changes made: Prior to the previous review a declaration had been made on the Talk page that I have a connection to the subject.

Thank you for your time and consideration to this request. Thanks Adpb (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Adpb (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 14:58:14, 13 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Steveeanet[edit]

I recently created an article for Dave Eanet, the long-time play-by-play announcer for Northwestern football and basketball.

The article was rejected, and I received this comment:

"Subject fails WP:GNG. Most of the cited sources are from his employer, WGN, or the school who's games he calls, NU, so none of those are independent of the subject. None of the awards or honors claimed are notable (meaning Wikipedia doesn't have articles about those honors)."

While this explanation makes sense, the one thing I don't understand is why several other college football announcers were able to have published pages while using similar sources (directly from the school/local media outlet). Here are some exapmles:

These men have comparable notability to Eanet. In fact, Eanet has more coverage/accolades than several of them. I have added some more independent sources to my article, but am hoping for a bit more of an understand as to why the above articles got approved but mine didn't.

Steveeanet (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Steveeanet. Franky, Wikipedia's standards were lower in the past, and some articles were created which would not be accepted today. Each of the articles that you linked above has notices about problems, and they may be deleted or modified before long. But also, Wikipedia has a practice that each article must stand on its own. This is summarized in the page Other Stuff Exists. To over-simplify that page, just because one article exists that violates a guideline or standard, is not a justification for creating another one. The argument "X exists using similar sources, so you must allow Y" seems logical, but because Wikipedia is volunteer-driven and therefore inco9nsistant in degree of development, such arguments are generally regarded as having little force. The exception might be if the prototype article X hjad been recognized through a peer-review process as a Good Article or a Featured Article. But that is not the case for any of the articles you link to.
So I would advise that you not worry about how other articles have or have not been sourced, but simply do what you can to improve the draft you are working on so that it might be accepted. Frankly, reviewers mostly prefer to accept drafts rather than to decline or reject them. But they are tasked with upholding certain standards, and avoiding an article being approved and moved to the main article space, only to have it deleted soon afterwards. This is not easy, which is one reason we have fewer reviewers than drafts to review. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

13 July rejection of Draft: Aicha Evans based on WP:notability[edit]

Hello! I’m trying to create / revise an article about an African American Female tech CEO to celebrate #500womenscientists. However, despite 20+ references (from NYT, Forbes, TechCrunch, etc) we are told she still lacks notability. I am curious what “bar” must be satisfied here, as I’ve read (and created) articles with far fewer references and claims to notability from the sports or music world that sail through. All advice welcomed! Tarselli (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

link: Draft:Aicha Evans
Hello, Tarselli Actually, fewer high-quality sources are often better than many poorer ones. Please understand that a source may be highly reliable, but if it does not offer significant coverage, it will help little if at all to demonstrate notability. I looked at the first 7 sources cited in the draft -- I am not going to check more than 30. Several were behind paywalls, but none of the others offered in-depth coverage of Evans. A story that she was appointed to a new (and granted important) position, along with a brief resume o9f her previous position(s), is not in-depth coverage. A source should have several paragraphs about Evans, at a minimum, that is not routine coverage, such as anyone in her job would get.
Please identify the three to five best sources in the article, all of which should include such in-depth coverage, or add several that do and identify those. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, DESiegel, for the helpful review. I'm going through and stripping out less-important references and refining the text ahead of its third review. Much appreciated! Tarselli (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

19:19:39, 13 July 2020 review of submission by Jeffseif[edit]

Jeffseif (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 21:47:35, 13 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by ArborChamp[edit]

Hello, I have submitted my draft for review twice on a highly accomplished director and film-maker Felischa Marye. I have added more than extensive information on the talk page to show why my article is worthy of Wikipedia. There is more than significant coverage and there are others who are on Wikipedia who are directors for the same shows that she is and have less information. At this point, I would like to know if there is a minority or cultural response team that I can reach. I am an African American female who has contributed to Wikipedia and love the platform but it seems as if 80 percent if not all of the edits and reviews are made by men. I have seen it time and time again and have not said anything but due to the climate of change, I feel compelled to finally speak up and say something even if it falls on death ears. As a woman, I demand change on Wikipedia as a journalist and literary I demand change from my peers and as an African American I demand that my voice be heard so that a dialogue can begin. ArborChamp (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC) ArborChamp (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Link: Draft:Felischa Marye
Hello, ArborChamp. It is undoubtedly truse that the large majority of active editors of Wikipedia are men, and that their ethnic diversity is significantly less than that of the population at large. They are also more centered in the US then one might wish. But I, and I think most editors, do my best to tr5eat all subjects fairly and equally, based only on Wikipedia policy.
There is no minority or cultural response team to the best of my understanding on Wikipedia, the closest thing I know of is Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. Franky, implications of bias in reviewing are not likley to gain a favorable response, still less are "demands".
Wikipedia creates articles only for topics with significant coverage from independent reliable sources When there is systematic bias in the sources (and there often is) such that people who should be covered are not, there will inevitably be consequent bias in Wikipedioa. We do not create sources, we merely report on them.
as to the draft, lets us look at the last set of source links on the draft page:
  • The first is a blog.
  • The 2nd has a single passing mention of Marye.
  • The 3rd has a single passing mention of Marye.
  • The 4th seems to bew based on an interview or PR, but in any case there is only a passing mention of Marye.
  • The 5tyh says nothign about Marye exceprt that she creaed the show being discussed. It malso sounds very muich like a repeated PR.
  • The same is true of the 6th
  • The 7th doesn't mention Marye at all, although it discusses the show she created.
  • The 8th is a duplicatge of the 6th -- I mean it the the4 exact same page.
  • The 9th discusses the show, but does not so much as mention Marye's name
  • The 10th haa single passing mention, and seems to be based on the same PR as the n2nd and 3rd.
And so on. Not one has anything approaching significant coverage of Marye. I am not goign to go through all the otehr sources listed on the talk page and in the draft. Can you please identify, preferably on the draft's talk page, some three to five independent reliable sources, each of which has significant coverage of Marye? At least several paragraphs about her? Large numbers of weak sources only harm the case, because when the first several prove worthless, the tendency is to just dismiss the draft as a waste of time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
DESiegel, I think that "several paragraphs" in 3-5 sources may be a stretch. I think that a few lengthy paragraphs in 2-3+ sources should be fine if they provide sufficient context about the subject. Username6892 00:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

22:51:22, 13 July 2020 review of submission by SescotRadio[edit]

SescotRadio (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You say that our submission is not'significant enought' to warrent inclusion. Why?

⚠ Nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G11. JTP (talkcontribs) 00:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 14[edit]

04:20:44, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Wikibtalpha[edit]

Do I need external sources? Wikibtalpha (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wikibtalpha: Yes! Verifiability is one of the core principle of Wikipedia. Without reliable independent sources that cover the subject in some depth its extremely unlikely that a draft would be accepted. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 04:21:22, 14 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by 199nah[edit]

199nah (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

04:28:34, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Mfaakeef[edit]

diamondrainwear 04:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mfaakeef: I have moved your draft to User:Mfaakeef/Sandbox because you root userpage isnt intended to prepear drafts (WP:FAKEARTICLE). Your draft currently has zero reliable sources. Verifiability is one of the core rules on Wikipedia. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 05:41:06, 14 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Deadwyler74[edit]

I would like to edit and repost the article for article Lonnie Deadwyler

Deadwyler74 (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deadwyler74: Please dont ask the same question on multiple places. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

09:48:52, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Diwashpant816[edit]

I've only limited resources. The other refernce which I ca use have a lot of ads that could hinder Wikipedia rules. I've got only3-4 reliable resources but my article is being declined time and again. Diwashpant816 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Diwashpant816, Accepted I have based my acceptance upon a probability in my view of it being edited positively in main article space and having a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process. Please continue to work on referencing.
You will see that I have trimmed two lists of names. While they ,ade the article longer they add nothing Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

10:04:56, 14 July 2020 review of submission by PapirusUK[edit]

I have changed my edit can it be reviewed again? or why will it not let me submit it again?

PapirusUK (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

PapirusUK, This appears to be your autobiography, and does not show that you pass our threshold. You were asked to check Wikipedia:Notability (music). Please ensure that the subject of the article passes the threshold clearly, demonstrate it with good references, and then make your case here for further review. If you cannot achieve that at present then you may need to await your career moving forwards
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, and is in WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 11:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
I am a fan making it for my favourite artist and I have changed it so can you review it again? and I have just copied it of other wiki pages its near enough exactly the same as others I found. I did do a more detailed career one but you mentioned refferences I then got better refferences and made it short just to submit it? I dont know why you are being so akward for just a wiki page? I have made them before with no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapirusUK (talkcontribs) 11:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
PapirusUK, There is no awkwardness here, simply a determination to keep standards high. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Fiddle Faddle 11:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you please check it again now I have changed it? I just want to standered submission for now so I can add more after etc... Its just I have checked some otheres and they have not put much etc? let me know if not I have another I could show you now to see what you think but I thought keep it short for now.
PapirusUK References that meet the answer I gave you above are the only thing that will work. I looked. Perhaps another host woudl like to take a look? Fiddle Faddle 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
PapirusUK I have looked too, I agree with the rejection, there is no indication whatsoever, that the artist passes WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

10:47:13, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Dereena[edit]

My submission is rejected. Please advise me how to get it right. Dereena (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Dereena, The only thing that will move this forward is the location of good referencing and a genuine notability. Many companies exist with no articles here and with no hope of getting articles because they miss out on notability. When you find it and assert it then you have to prove it with references.
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 11:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

11:15:38, 14 July 2020 review of submission by[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why my article has been rejected: I've used plenty of published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and clearly demonstrate that the subject (The Hardy Players) was of contemporary and historical interest. One of the sources ('Thomas Hardy on Stage', by a respected professor at Ottawa University) devotes most of the book to the The Hardy Players. The Hardy Players are also the subject of numerous newspaper articles, as well as a BBC programme. I've linked to some of these, in particular this book: Wilson, Keith (1995). Thomas Hardy on Stage. The Macmillan Press. ISBN 9780333598856 which devotes more than 60 pages to The Hardy Players. What more can I do to make this article work? (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Without a link to the draft-one can help you. This is the only thing this IP address has submitted here Fiddle Faddle 14:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Timtrent:I assume this is about Draft:The Hardy Players. I dont have an Idea on this. Mabe ping @Eternal Shadow: as the reviewer. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Victor Schmidt, To me this looks like one of those drafts that, after a copyvio check, might take its place in article space and take its chances. I will do that check and consider doing that for it. Thank you for finding it. I'll wait a decent time for Eternal Shadow to have an opinion, first. All it has too have is a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion process, after all. We don need review to perfection, just to acceptability. Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Seems decently notable but needs a little more work. I’d be happy to help you find more sources and make it rely less on the source Thomas Hardy on Stage. As for the close call on notability, I think we could let it slide, although the chances of surviving an AfD might vary depending on who you ask. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Eternal Shadow, Unless you disagree I think it may take its chance as an article. In theory, even with poor sources, notability alone out to prevent deletion at AfD Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Timtrent It’s best to be bold then! It could probably survive an AfD but some AfD people are extreme deletionists so it depends. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Eternal Shadow, some are, some are protectionists. Mostly the middle line is trodden. Fiddle Faddle 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Timtrent, I try to be moderate when I’m at AfD, but AfC is a mess of non notable drafts and close calls that are at best barely passing. I accept only about 10 percent of drafts, most of which are close calls. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Eternal Shadow, most drafts are wholly in need of huge work. They get sent back without a qualm, sometimes rejected. The community here often surprises me both ways with improving vs deleting. I never get close to a draft, just choose what to do with it. Before we had AFC new articles were deleted too early every few minutes. Now they stand a chance Fiddle Faddle 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Timtrent, I agree. Considering AfC is decently tough with close calls multiple times a day, it makes sense why AfC has a huge backlog, mainly due to reviewers being semi active. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
The only way to actually Know for sure if something will pass a aFD Is to take it there and see what the community says. AFD is not consistent enough then any AFC reviewer can really tell. That's why the criterion for passing AFC Is merely that it is likely to pass AFD (I think that for most of us "likely" is >80% or so, to the extent such guesses can be quantified). Our job is not to insist on high quality articles , but to screen out the junk. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

13:25:52, 14 July 2020 review of draft by[edit]

My article got declined because i wrote about myself and i submitted it as well. So it doesn’t let me to publish it. What can I do about that? (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It was not declined because you wrote about yourself(though discouraged, it is not forbidden), it was declined because you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. An article should only summarize what others say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

13:40:58, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Mgoldenbarnes[edit]

I updated this page according to the feedback quite a while ago and I just wanted to know if everything was ok with it and when it might be published. Or if there are any issues, what needs to be done to sort it out.

Mgoldenbarnes (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mgoldenbarnes, I think reviewers are put off by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nic Fanciulli, which means, broadly, that a reviewer who is also an admin needs to look at the deleted version and compare your version with it. I am not so can not. I avoid Music drafts because it is a blind spot for me Fiddle Faddle 14:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for this - how do I go about bringing it to the attention of an admin reviewer?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoldenbarnes (talkcontribs) 10:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

16:25:49, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Raymondr1877[edit]

Question because of the rejection of my draft article about Ken Rockwell: Hi, why is Ken Rockwell - one of the prototypes of the later so called 'influencers' (he started 20 years ago and had his peak 10 years ago...) - not important for Wikipedia, where are far too many articles about the later 'influencers' and bloggers, e.g. Chiara Ferragni?

Ken Rockwell (born 1962) is an American influencer and photographer[1].

Rockwell, one of the first influencers, started at the end of the 1990s with publishing information for personal use on his private webpage, which developed to be one of the most influential independent sources of reviews of cameras and lenses[2] and reached 6 Million readers by 2010[3].

Raymondr1877 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Interview with Ken Rockwell on KCBS TV2, Los Angeles, 09 February 2005
  2. ^ Ken Rockwell – A View Through the Lens: Photography and the Internet, Originally Broadcast: May 9, 2006
  3. ^ Better Photography, January 2010, Raj Lalwani: "The Opinion Maker", pp.104-109 (Bombay 2010)
@Raymondr1877: Please see WP:OSE for why its not a good Idea to cite the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article for the existence of others. Wikipedia requires multiple reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Interviews arent independent in most cases. Blogs and other user-editable sources (that includes Wikipedia) arent considered reliable either. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Victor Schmidt: thanks for the answer, why is a print article of an established magazine, a TV broadcast and a radio broadcast not enough as sources for an wikipedia article about an "prototype" "influencer", meaning for someone who exists only inside the internet?Raymondr1877 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, "Influencer" Is such a vague term that I tend to distrust any claims of that nature. It's PR-talk, and any source no matter its reputation that uses it Is likely to be publishing PR. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

18:04:40, 14 July 2020 review of submission by Mscelebtv[edit]

Will this draft be approved? I have provided additional references to this draft. I also included a wikipedia page that he has for another film: Zen (2007 film). Gary Davis (director) directed this film and it is already on Wikipedia. Thank you

Mscelebtv (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Mscelebtv, I have left a comment on your draft. Fiddle Faddle 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Request on 19:52:48, 14 July 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rajkumar5609[edit]

Rajkumar5609 (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Rajkumar5609 You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

20:28:43, 14 July 2020 review of draft by Jamoh91[edit]

Jamoh91 (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

i want to ask what i can do to publish my article i don't know what i can do to publish please help me

The recent comment from Calliopejen1 on the4 draft is very apt: Are there any reliable, independent sources ABOUT the subject of this draft? Like newspaper articles about his career? If so, you should delete everything here and start from scratch, summarizing ONLY what those newspaper articles say. If not, you should abandon your attempt to write a Wikipedia article about this person.
None of the curently cited sources seems to be an independent and reliable source o0ffering significant coverage. Several suh sources would be needed. Mush of the curent draftrs is mere lists of bullet points with not details, these are of little value. Much of the prose is highly promotional. Such text as Because of his leading role in the field of international arbitration and investments, he has his print in establishing his own enterprises, which exceeds sixty companies in various disciplines would not be acceptable even if supported by sources.
In short, start over from a blank page if at all. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

05:07:54, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Mr. Wiki Indian[edit]

Mr. Wiki Indian (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This article can be made, because when the article was present, it was covered with semi-protection. This proves that, the article was notable, but over time the information and sources were removed from the article. Which led reviewers to think that the article is not notable.

It is proved that when the article was present, semi-protection was imposed by the administrator.

My only opinion is to remake the article.

Not done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashish Chanchlani Fiddle Faddle 06:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

08:20:05, 15 July 2020 review of submission by PiZzaMizzA2004[edit]

Battle for Dream Island is a YouTube series with millions of views. The page was given two reasons why it was denied. One was for notability. It won the Fandom 2016 Battle of the Fantasy Foods with Yoylecake. It also is a member of the Channel Frederator Network. The other reason was for going against the core Wikipedia values. I do not think the article goes against them. I am working on adding citations, and I do not think that the page is being added just for public recognition. I hope that it is re-reviewed. If it is denied, I can understand, since it's just a stub at certain points. PiZzaMizzA2004 (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

PiZzaMizzA2004 The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Viewership is not usually a measure of notability, neither is winning a frankly unremarkable award(it isn't an Academy Award). What matters is if this web series received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that chose on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the Wikipedia definition of notable web content. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

10:31:00, 15 July 2020 review of submission by Mgoldenbarnes[edit]

So, apparently this needs to be reviewed by an admin reviewer. How can I bring to the attention of such a person please?

Mgoldenbarnes (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Mgoldenbarnes You have submitted it for review. As noted in the yellow box at the bottom, "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,625 pending submissions waiting for review", so you will need to be patient. Reviewers and administrators are two different groups; only a reviewer needs to examine your draft. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)