Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help deskBacklog drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

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

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


March 17[edit]

Thank you for your feedback. I wanted to address what you said but can't.[edit]

Request on 04:51:21, 17 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Mrphilip[edit]

SOMEONE USED G12 Deletion three hours after you first left word on my first submission of this article. That review took less than 24 hours, no where near the proposed timeframe of up to 8 weeks given when submitted. WOW. Can't we fix this so I may continue to work on my article about a new part of the NIH which fact under the LGBT WIKIPROJECT Umbrella. Also, how do I add that link t my article? I forget. Mrphilip (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

17:14, 16 March 2019 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Sexual and Gender Minority Research Office (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of, (thank) I WON'T THANK THEM, I WISH TO REPORT THEM FOR ABUSING G12 WHEN EARLIER VERSIONS SAVED THAT VERY DAY EXISTED WITHOUT THE NORTHWESTERN MATERIAL AND THE ARTICLE COULD HAVE REVERTED TO ANY OTHER POINT IN ARTCLE HISTORY. THE NORTHWESTERN TEXT WAS ONE OF THE VERY LAST ADDITIONS TO THIS ARTICLE. THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES REFERENCED MATERIAL WAS ALSO ADDED ON FRIDAY. If they had a problem with copyright, you revert before delete. I know this and I am a novice on WIKI. Mrphilip (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mrphilip (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You got speedy service. Some pages take 8 weeks to get to. Don't post copy vio. Don't go to User:RHaworth's page and YELL at him for deleting your illegal reposting of content. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

08:11:48, 17 March 2019 review of draft by 2604:2000:E010:1100:11EA:267:1884:8E5E[edit]

I keep on trying to submit a draft for review. But it does not work. Can you please do it? The draft is Draft:Gamal Aziz. --2604:2000:E010:1100:11EA:267:1884:8E5E (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

2604:2000:E010:1100:11EA:267:1884:8E5E (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to accept it. Subject is notable before the current criminal charges. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. For some reason the categories don't appear. And there is stuff in code at the bottom of the page when you open it up for editing that I am guessing should not be there. 2604:2000:E010:1100:11EA:267:1884:8E5E (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    • FYI, I corrected those errors. There was an open-ended comment just below the references section that was hiding all that content when the page rendered normally, but you could see it clearly in the code. Everything should be good now. Great job on the article! You should consider creating an account! - PaulT+/C 16:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

10:55:52, 17 March 2019 review of draft by HolmanPark[edit]

I cannot understand why I am unable to load images that are in my ownership and were taken by myself. Please help.

HolmanPark (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

12:13:14, 17 March 2019 review of draft by Ugneszewski[edit]

Hello, is there any process to fast-track the review for this well-referenced article, thanks:

Ugneszewski (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What's your hurry, and what is your connection with him? I have removed a lot of promotional trumpery for you.Theroadislong (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

13:18:33, 17 March 2019 review of submission by PortlyJackson[edit]

I have modified the article to correct a citation to the principal notability reference. It now uses the correct magazine template. I have made statements concerning notability on the article's Talk page, specifically claims for 1st and 3rd notability inclusion criteria. Appreciate if you could re-review on the basis of the Talk page and updated article.

PortlyJackson (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

14:46:05, 17 March 2019 review of draft by Pequena Princesa[edit]

Very well I will not post the photo now and just try to get the draft approved by increasing the number of sources first. But I would never publish it without a photo, when all the artists have one: it would be insulting to the artist. So the issue is still live. By the way, the Voice-Tribune of Louisville have a great photo of Marisa in concert there which they took themselves: clear copyright. But they want to sell it for US$18. Does Wikipedia have a budget for that? If so, please tell me how to submit the claim for the Voice-Tribune. If wikipedia don't have a budget, wikipedia really need to change their policy and allow any photo already published where the publisher does not object to its use on Pequena Princesa (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pequena Princesa: - Wikipedia doesn't buy copyright photos. Our photo rules, excepting a few fair use cases which don't apply here, have to have a broader license than I think would be the case if we opted just for the cases you propose. This is to let us make our information globally reusable - anyone is allowed to copy Wikipedia's data, and license changes would prevent that. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

17:02:46, 17 March 2019 review of draft by Lioninthewild[edit]

I am writing to inquire whether I have submitted the draft successfully or not. Lioninthewild (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Clearly meets WP:NPOL so will accept. Well done. Legacypac (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

17:34:26, 17 March 2019 review of submission by Rumbidzainokutenda[edit]

Hi, i'm requesting for assistance because i'm new and i'm still learning . I have made some changes on my first article (Draft) , i really wanna know if there is other parts i should add or correct or just some advice you want to share with me

Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid that as the note on your draft says "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." You have no independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

18:52:37, 17 March 2019 review of draft by Isegarth[edit]

Isegarth (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I have submitted an article (Ludwig Loewe -DWM) and have copied the list of footnotes that has now finished up in wrong position and not formatted correctly. I would be grateful for a link with simple-- i9nstructions on how to format footnotes. Thank You! Patrick Isegarth (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

You will find help with formatting sources here WP:REFB. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

01:24:17, 18 March 2019 review of submission by Macropedia[edit]

I need to submit this article about child welfare charity in Cambodia, which is important for this article that I need advance to gain fight against child sex trafficking in Cambodia.

Macropedia (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Macropedia: - your one source is probably (not certainly - Vice' reliability can be questionable) good, but organisations need at least 1 more high quality source and usually 2.
Additionally you need more content - what they do, how they do it etc
If you are going to use the Vice article as your main source, you should be including the negatives it involves as well as the positives. This includes concerns about evidence-gathering quality, overreach into police work and a former director being arrested for sex crimes. Unless he's been found guilty, it can be preferable not to include his name.
As a question to go with my comments - are you employed by - or a volunteer with - APLE? Nosebagbear (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: This editor has been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK so perhaps this thread should be closed or archived. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

07:42:51, 18 March 2019 review of submission by ChinaUnicomWP[edit]

ChinaUnicomWP (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@ChinaUnicomWP: - no sources at all, so definitely non-notable. No content beyond the headers. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

08:29:28, 18 March 2019 review of submission by Mwinchina[edit]

Hi i have a stated conflict of interest in that i am the publisher of this title, which has been produced since 2005.

I’m guessing its that all the references are self-references (aka links to my own website), but not really sure where to turn for “independent” source.

We have others on Wikipedia linking to us as a source

examples: see references 9 and 16 see reference 7 See reference 6 See reference 17

Also, our other English publication is already listed on wikipedia:

So I guess my ask is twofold, (1) was my selection rejected due to my COI or that i do not have additional references outside my own website? And (2) does the fact that many Wikipedia pages cite us as a legit reference count as a reference for us?

Mwinchina (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

We will not reject because you have a disclosed conflict of interest. Thank-you for being up front about that. When Wikipedia links to your site (assuming the links are within policy) that says edotors find your website to be a WP:RS. This does not help with WP:N however. For example we might find an old book to be reliable but if there are no reviews it does not get an article. What you need are Reliable Sources that talk about your business in depth. Follow the links in the pink box on your draft to understand more. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

09:18:24, 18 March 2019 review of submission by Saritakaranmpi[edit]

Saritakaranmpi (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Saritakaranmpi: - sheer weight of sources is useless. We need reliable sources, which social media definitely isn't. Your draft has been rejected. Please don't resubmit unless you scrap all of the social media sources and add at least 3 in-depth reliable secondary sources. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

10:30:09, 18 March 2019 review of draft by RamonMPh[edit]

Dear editors, My first version was declined due to formatting. I have now revised the formatting to follow other officeholder or ambassador pages I have seen on Wikipedia. Please let me know if the formatting is now ok.

I have also tried to draft in a way to ensure that statements of facts are verifiable. Other than CV, which was written by Luis Moreno Salcedo in the 1990s and used to obtain dates for Luis Moreno Salcedo's early career, no other sources rely on family information. Obtaining those dates would otherwise require going through the archives of the Philippine department of foreign affairs which at this time is not feasible. Please let me know if the references as provided are acceptable.

I should mention that I am Luis Moreno Salcedo's son, Ramon. I understand this can raise issues however, and I would like to ask for your advice on how I could secure approval for this entry. Two points.

First  I have tried to ensure that all the statements of fact or opinion are from independent sources that can be verified.  I have experience with academic style research (Ph.D Columbia University and an extensive list of publications) so I am conscious of the need to ensure that information is verifiable and opinions are from independent sources.

Second, I wrote this brief because I believe Luis Moreno-Salcedo made an important contribution to Philippine diplomacy. However, he passed away over 30 years ago and it would be difficult to find someone with access to the necessary information to write this article unless they invested even more effort than I did in writing this brief entry. Thanks for your advice, Ramon Moreno RamonMPh (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft was accepted as an article - congrats! Nosebagbear (talk)

11:24:43, 18 March 2019 review of draft by ATAVLATIN[edit]

Hello, I am currently editing the article because it lacked references and now I am in the process of adding them, but I also want to make one slight change to the title of the article. Instead of saying "Alexander M. Johnson", I want to change it to "Alexander Johnson (Businessman). Please let me know how to change the article title before I click publish with the other changes.

ATAVLATIN (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi ATAVLATIN, first go ahead and save ("publish") the changes you've done to the content. Moving a page to a new title is a separate process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!! I have done this, now what do I need to do? (ATAVLATIN (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC))

@ATAVLATIN: Click the blue words in Dodger67's reply to follow the link to an explanation of how to move a page to a new name. If you use parenthetical disambiguation, do not capitalize the occupation. Alexander Johnson (businessman) would be okay. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

13:19:27, 18 March 2019 review of draft by Angelzulu[edit]

I need help with someone who understands Albanian writing to verify my links to the local newspapers referenced? Angelzulu (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Angelzulu. For Albanian language assistance I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albania, or ask active editors in Category:User aln-N. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:32:34, 18 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Pecunia editor[edit]

Hello, the article "PECUNIA" has been declined due to the fact that it is "contrary to the purpose of wikipedia". I disagree with this argument due to the following reasons and ask for a second review process: - The article introduces a Horizon 2020 project deadling with mental health. It is of huge importance to tackle the future challenges in the healthcare sectors in Europe. The article gives an insight into the work and it is planned that the article will become bigger throughout the project and after, including relevant results and other findings from this research sector in an objective, transparent way. - The article will introduce different views and research results on various topics in the area of chronic and mental healthcare - Before drafting the article the team dealt very carefully with all criteria necessary to publish such an article, including notability of the topic, reliability of the sources, independence, objectiveness, quality etc. As examples, we used similar published wikipedia articles of Horizon 2020 projects, such as "Graphene Flagship", "Lingvist", "IPR-Helpdesk", "EU NanoSafety Cluster". - The project team will contribute to other articles in this research field, e.g. stubs ("unit costs", "economic evaluation"), and create new articles (e.g. "patient-reported outcome")

In light of these arguments, I am kindly asking you to check the article again for publication. Thank you! Pecunia editor (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pecunia editor: - the best way to clarify why the reviewer said it was contrary to the purpose is to ask them User talk:Theroadislong will take you there.
I will however give my own thoughts - as a tertiary source, Wikipedia doesn't particularly look ahead - it takes very well documented events such as the next set of elections. Any event where there is a significant chance of failure, not-finishing etc generally does not get an article.
More problematic is the current state of sourcing - for the project itself, high quality secondary sources that are in-depth on the project (as opposed to background knowledge) are needed to demonstrate what we call notability. This means that the Pecunia sources don't count towards it as they are obviously involved as well as primary. The same is the case for the cordis/EU source. The two journals would be good if they were on the actual project, but afaict provide general background knowledge (so are great for that, just not general notability).
This is not a judgement on the importance of the project - I wish it succeeds immensely, but as Wikipedia is not qualified to judge importance, we judge primarily off secondary source coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

18:04:52, 18 March 2019 review of submission by 2e524a3b5d[edit]

Hi, my draft for the Draft:Home_From_The_Sea movie was rejected because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" since the only citation was from the production company website.

I've added another citation from "A Critical Handbook of Japanese Film Directors", which you can see here:

Is this enough? Can I re-submit for review? Or should I find more citations?

Thank you.

2e524a3b5d (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi 2e524a3b5d. It's a step in the right direction, but one sentence in one independent source is not sufficient to meet the notability guideline for films. To justify a stand alone encyclopedia article about the film you would need substantially more. Until then you could add a sentence or two about the film to the article about the director, Yoji Yamada. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

18:58:01, 18 March 2019 review of draft by 2405:204:282:1DD0:9C5E:3C24:FE45:9CB1[edit]

Dear Editors,

It has been quite a while since Draft:Mher Khachatryan (artist) hasn't been reviewed. I would be really appreciate it if anyone here please review it.

Thanks you! 2405:204:282:1DD0:9C5E:3C24:FE45:9CB1 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@2405:204:282:1DD0:9C5E:3C24:FE45:9CB1: - it's been about 3 weeks since you uploaded it. As the yellow box says, given the current backlog it might take 8 weeks (or a day, it could be any length up to the max) - please be patient don't attempt to jump the link. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

22:56:16, 18 March 2019 review of submission by MattB REAMP[edit]

I'm trying to have this article created and am not entirely sure why it's not notable enough, especially when compared to other articles around similar topics (small energy retailers in Australia).

Any direction would be fantastic.

MattB REAMP (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCORP has been made tougher to pass over time. In my opinion too tough to pass but no one listens to me. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Is there much I can do about this? Have the article reviewed (if so how? Google wasn't much help)? Or is it just a flat "no"? Thanks heaps. :) MattB REAMP (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

02:07:54, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Narine1202[edit]

Hi, The draft for creation a page about DA Technology has been rejected for the second time with a comment that it is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. After it was rejected for the first time I included a number of independent sources that show that the company in South Korea is quite notable. I have been following similar pages that have half of the citations compared to this page and still have been published. Could you please provide more details on what is the article missing and I hope the problem is not that most of the sources are in Korean., It is honestly giving hard time to me so please help me out if you have any suggestions on how I can improve it. Also, I would like to get a second opinion about whether the article is notable enough for Wikipedia.

Thank you and hope to receive any feedback soon. Narine1202 (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

05:28:06, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Norman Quizon[edit]

I need to see if i can able to see the topic of Norman Quizon in wikipedia public Norman Quizon (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

05:28:06, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Norman Quizon

Hi Norman Quizon. Norman Quizon is not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Also, unlike Facebook, LinkedIn, or similar sites, Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

07:18:58, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Marchjuly[edit]

First off, I am not the editor who submitted this draft for review; I'm only posting here to seek opinions about what to do about it. The creator Stephen Adriano has been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK, so that account is never going to be unblocked. It also seems unlikely that master Lilit'sassistent is going to be unblocked to resume editting any time soon. I've discussed the draft at User talk:Oshwah#User:Stephen Adriano and User:Lilit'sassistent with the admin who blocked the accounts, and he doesn't think the draft qualifies for speedy deletion; so, unless someone else steps in an continues to work on it, it's going to likely end up being deleted in six months or so per WP:G13.

The question then is whether it's worth waiting until that time or should it be brought to WP:MfD instead. One possible negative which might result from leaving the draft in place and waiting until G13 is applicable is that it might encourage more socking and WP:EVADE behavior by the master; one possible positive is that someone might stumble on it and decide it's worth working on. FWIW, I don't think the draft techincially qualifies for CSD per WP:G5 since it was created about 30 minutes before the master was blocked, but perhaps there's a precedent for G5 which has been previously established in a similar case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I would do nothing, and let G13 take care of it in six months. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this Worldbruce. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

08:33:37, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Cesole[edit]

This page was declined as it did not have acceptable sources in order to prive notability. I changed that and added the right wources as references as well and I resubmitted it. Is there anything else that should change in order to have it approved? How long will it take again to have it re-reviewed? Cesole (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cesole. As the big yellow box on the draft says, there are 2600+ drafts awaiting review. At the current rate, you can expect the draft to be reviewed within two months or so. You may continue improving it while you wait, or see Wikipedia:Community portal for ways you can help reduce the many backlogs here. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

08:59:41, 19 March 2019 review of draft by Schoolstrust[edit]

I wanting wanting to publish this article but it has been 2 months pending review.

Schoolstrust (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Schoolstrust: - this was reviewed before I saw this, but I re-reviewed it given it to make sure, especially given the full waiting span endured. However the original reviewer is correct. Primary schools need significant sourcing to be included, and your sources aren't independent (they're heavily linked to the school). Nosebagbear (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

13:13:18, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Zeno Gantner[edit]

(resubmission of this request, as my first request for a second opinion from March 12 was ignored)

Hello, I do not understand this decision. The last time the article was declined for quality reasons, which are now fixed.

The article describes an ongoing event series that has been running since 2010. Thousands of people attended the events. They have/had media partnerships with major German sports streaming (ran) and the most widely distributed tabloid (Bild), they get reported in general German-language newspapers -- about 10 media mentions are already linked in the article -- there are a lot more, of course. So at least I think there is sufficient media coverage. What exactly is missing for notability?

PS: Some "less notable" MMA organizations that have Wikipedia articles (just the letter "A"): Art of War Undisputed Arena Fighting Championship, Association of Boxing Commissions, Australian Fighting Championship, Albanian Mixed Martial Arts Federation, Alliance MMA.

zeno (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

14:20:21, 19 March 2019 review of draft by Rachellpearl[edit]

Hello - I am not understanding how to make the Mark McInturff page work. I'm not sure why there is a notice at the top that says the writer is close to the source - I disclosed that I work for him - is this not enough, so there needs to be a notice at the top of the page? I'm so confused! I've had a ton of help on here and for someone who thought they were computer savvy - wow. I am always sorta lost in here.

All the sources I've listed and the webpages used to site everything is what I have. I used the subscript note to cite sources and I'm just so confused as to why a comparable architect is on Wiki and Mark McInturff isn't. He really is the leading Architect in the DC region, I can't figure out what I'm missing.

I see he was loaded up to Everybody Wiki - who did that? Just curious. We are grateful!

Anyway, I just need more hand-holding than I realized! Can someone put in plain English exactly why Mark McInturff seems to not be acceptable?

Rachellpearl (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at the draft. Everybodywiki uses robots to copy our drafts. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rachellpearl: - hi there. There's a few bits to this question, and I'm going to tackle the easy ones first then come back to the reason it was declined.
First up is Everybody Wiki - this is one of many sites that duplicates content on Wikipedia. Unlike many, it also duplicates drafts - I'm not sure who originally created it, but their automated spiders look after the process of duplicating the material. They seem quite good on the referencing process, so the content links back appropriately.
Second is the comparable architect issue - we have a dedicated essay called Other Stuff Exists. In short, one page's existence does not mean another should (or should not) exist, we may just have not have considered it properly.
Third is the notice - it usually means an editor thinks the draft/article is at least somewhat non-neutral (many articles are this state), and they want to note a possible reason is a connected writer. This is particularly key for drafts where reviewers come new to a page and the original creator is usually the only editor.
Finally - why it was declined! So your draft is about Mark, who is still alive. Currently your draft has a bunch of references - which for some topics might be enough. However, living people have extra protections on Wikipedia. Biographies of living persons requires any questionable fact (positive, negative, neutral or otherwise) to be specifically sourced. I can see you have specifically cited certain points - you need to do this for anything someone might say "prove it" to. Critically, you need to use the best sources possible as those will be the ones people check - reliable secondary sources.
Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions - you've already done most of the hard work (I hope!).
EDIT CONFLICT: (This comment was written before LegacyPac, but posted after his comment above - he may comment otherwise to mine). Nosebagbear (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

15:23:10, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Katdemott[edit]

In the headline of this article, please insert the middle initial "A.", as in Paul A. Sieving. This person is widely known to use his middle initial. His name is very rarely seen in print without the middle initial. Thank you! Katdemott (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)  Done Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

16:27:35, 19 March 2019 review of draft by Vsreid28[edit]

I'd like to add the company's basic information below the logo inside the box such as founder, founded year, headquarters etc. But can't seem to get the formatting right.

VSREID28 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Does not matter. Zero chance this page will be approved. What's the going rate to create pages like this? Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 19:33:46, 19 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by[edit]

I Created the 2019-20 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball season navbox and it is not responding can you help me please. (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC) (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

19:44:34, 19 March 2019 review of submission by Grahamogt[edit]

Thank you for reviewing, can you help me understand why this organization isn't considered notable? I used references from the FAA and aviation class text books. The founder of the organization co-created the system LOSA that is mentioned on this Wiki page ( and the organization is responsible for gathering the data for those LOSAs.

Grahamogt (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

22:04:54, 19 March 2019 review of draft by 2405:204:9521:E1:0:0:192F:30AC[edit]

2405:204:9521:E1:0:0:192F:30AC (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What is problem in my article link, its Wikipedia draft :-

Answered on draft. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

22:06:57, 19 March 2019 review of draft by WinnyHuangatEcontact[edit]

Hi I just submitted a new article for review. It's titled The Complete Lyrics to The Messiah by Georg Friedrich Handel. I am trying to put The Bible in as reference but I am having trouble with that because I think I accidentally deleted the program language that allows me to do that. Can you help me with this? Also it really would be nice if the page is up by Easter...April 21st of this year. So help! Thanks!

WinnyHuangatEcontact (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi WinnyHuangatEcontact. What you've been working on does not appear to be an encyclopedia article. The full text of the oratorio is already available to readers at one of our sister projects, see Messiah on Wikisource. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

03:22:22, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Ironalien[edit]

I do not understand why this article draft is considered not to have enough external references, given that other game engine articles, such as Retro Engine, Snowdrop (game engine) and Fox Engine have a similar article citation status (no scholarly articles, only specialized gaming press coverage). Both Snowdrop and Fox are used only in a handful of triple-A games, just like the Foundation Engine. Ironalien (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ironalien Greetings. Please read the grey pane on the top of the draft page which states the reason why the page was rejected. In addition all the sources you provide do not talk "directly" about the subject in length and in dept. Kindly click the blue highlighted texts for further info in detail. There are many articles that do not pass notability guidelines which should not not in the main space of Wikipedia as reviewers and editors have yet to have noticed / have time to look into them to nominate those articles for deletion - pls see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. We recommend editors to look at good articles as the examples for well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in independent, reliable coverage articles. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 05:24:35, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Chetnaphour[edit]

Chetnaphour (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

06:36:38, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Peter025[edit]

Hi , I am requesting a re-review because I feel that she has got significant coverage by different sources. There are entire articles written with her as the subject(not a passing reference ). Everything in those articles are about her . With all due respect , I am unable to understand how much more can a person have as significant coverage than have entire articles in the news on themselves. References 13-16 are all articles with her as the main topic.There are more but as the reviewer might be short on time so I have recommended these.The titles themselves have her as the subject.

So ,therefore , please can you re-review and if you deem it "not notable " yet again , PLEASE PLEASE can you explain to us in detail as to what more can be done instead of a few lines? I understand editors have hectic schedules and other articles to review but if details for improvement are mentioned in detail then maybe next time around we might be able to present to you a draft that satisfies all notability guidelines.

Thank you . Peter025 (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter025, one of the problems with drafts like this one is that there is so much referenced from sources that aren't reliable that it's difficult for other editors to see which sources do prove notability. Adding sources that aren't reliable to provide more and more and more references that aren't reliable or aren't significant won't help; in fact makes things worse.
Are you saying references 13-16 are the best references that show significant coverage in reliable sources? --valereee (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, going through refs: #13 is Tellychakkar, which according to a discussion on WP:RSN appears to be the media relations arm of a PR firm. That is not a reliable source, and even if it were the story is very short. Ref# 14 is, which looks like it's basically reliable, but it's also a very, very short piece. Probably wouldn't even help to support notability, it's so short. Ref# 15 is Times of India, so that's a reliable source. It's a pretty short article, but might support notability if there were many such articles. Ref# 16 also a very short piece, maybe enough to support notability claims if there were other significant coverage. That source, IWMBuzz, doesn't seem to have ever been mentioned in the reliable sources noticeboard archives, which makes me very suspicious of it.
If these are the best articles you can find, you will not prove notability with them. I'm sorry, but this young woman doesn't appear to be notable yet. --valereee (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
As a followup, I see that you are using "please can you explain to us" and "we might be able." Often this means you are writing this as a representative of the article's subject. If you or your firm are employed by Ms. Singh or by someone who represents her, you must disclose your WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST on your user page. --valereee (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Valereee , THANK YOU for the very prompt reply .

1)I would firstly like to clarify that I am neither Ms.Singh's representative nor employed by her. I don't even live in the same part of the world she lives in . The only reason I used those words" we and us " was because currently there are 3 different editors on this draft including me , so I just grouped us all together as we had been collaborating and trying to make sure every section in the draft is the best possible version it is .

2) Secondly , THANK YOU . THANK YOU SO SO MUCH . Atleast now we do understand what kind of sources might be reliable eg, Times of India and Quint and how much of significant coverage should be present .

3) Thirdly, there are articles of the kind you mentioned from some other reliable sources and I don't think that articles of references 13-16 are the best . I did see some articles by Times of India which were pretty much similar to articles from other references on this draft but I felt no need to cite them as they were pretty much the same but I will clearly have to change them now. Also in my experience (cross checked with references in other TV celeb pages ) I have usually never seen really long articles for other TV celebs as well. Articles in India for TV Celebs unlike for TV Celebs in Europe and America are of short to medium in length . Articles usually are short to medium and have the same standard format of introducing the actor and then a few lines said by them are written . They also usually talk a few lines about the show which the actor currently works on and all in all articles aren't really long.

4)IWMBuzz was previously known as Indian Wiki Media . Maybe you might have heard of it with that name .Is there a list of sorts of reliable sources allowed or any place where we can see a few names of reliable sources of India ?

5)So basically PR firms and any other similar organizations that can provide coverage about a person are a big NO NO. I hope I got that right . I have read the guidelines on Reliable Sources again just now but I just want to confirm.

Lastly THANK YOU SO SO VERY MUCH WITH YOUR PROMPT REPLY and HELPING US ACHIEVE SOME KIND OF IDEA on how to go about from this point onwards. Thank you for taking time out of your hectic schedule and reviewing it . I hope that someone reviews our draft again when and if the changes are made with the same amount of promptness . Might just be pushing mu luck there...LOL!

Regards --Peter025 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter025, if it were me -- and this is just my own personal advice, not any kind of wikipedia policy -- I would find my three best sources. Three sources that are all both 1. unimpeachably reliable (you can ask for help assessing sources at WP:RSN) and 2. provide SIGNIFICANT coverage -- that is, a lengthy article that is about her or mostly about her, not just short mentions or quotes. Then write the article based on those sources, and once you've got it written, ask the good people at WP:Teahouse (a great resource for new editors) if someone would take a look at it for you to assess notability. --valereee (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
THANK YOU Valereee for your very very prompt reply AGAIN! . I honestly didn't even know that . I just want to clarify, when you mean about her you mean about Ms.Singh generally , not about her going to a wedding or some specific topic . Am I correct? Also is it alright if the articles aren't really long as there seem to be a shortage of long articles for TV celebs in India generally . THANK YOU ONCE AGAIN for your VERY PROMPT REPLY!!
Hi Peter025. With regard to your fourth question, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources and more generally Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Worldbruce THANK YOU for answering the fourth question. I just looked at it and the pages clearly looked to be of great help . Thank you so very much and for taking your time to provide the links . --Peter025 (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

07:29:15, 20 March 2019 review of draft by Mushroomsareforeating[edit]

Please tell me when this can be approved? Thanks

Mushroomsareforeating (talk) 07:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mushroomsareforeating. As the big yellow box on the draft says, there are 2600+ drafts awaiting review. At the present rate you can expect the draft to be reviewed in the next two months or so. Drafts often aren't approved on their first review (indeed, something like 80% of drafts are never approved); you'll just have to wait for the review to see. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

09:30:34, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Brunapickler[edit]

Brunapickler (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

13:09:50, 20 March 2019 review of draft by Barbaro Montiel[edit]

Barbaro Montiel (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I would like to Know what is wrong with this Wikipedia page

Barbaro Montiel, so far it doesn't seem to have been reviewed, so I don't see anything saying there's anything wrong with it? What are you seeing that makes you think someone has already indicated there's something wrong with it? --valereee (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I see on your talk page that an editor has moved the article to draft space with the comment that the article reads like promotional content -- is that what you're asking about? --valereee (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

14:04:19, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Kamalkantdivya[edit]

Kamalkantdivya (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

14:14:23, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Kamalkantdivya[edit]

Kamalkantdivya (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You have twice submitted a blank draft, there is nothing to review? Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 14:19:08, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by WinnyHuangatEcontact[edit]

Hi! I would really like to see the complete lyrics to Georg Friedrich Handel's Messiah on Wikipedia. I could not find ended up googling individual movement's lyrics on other websites (there are 53 movements) and compiled them in one page and submitted it for Wikipedia review. The draft is called The Complete Lyrics to The Messiah by Georg Friedrich Händel. But it was understandably declined..well it is my first time doing I am not surprised. The thing is how do I go about making this article suitable for Wikipedia? Any suggestions? Also I really don't care who did it as long as it is done. Can someone in Wikipedia make the complete Lyrics to Handel's Messiah accessible so no one would have to google individual songs and find lyrics for different songs at different sites? I really searched hard in Wikipedia for this but could not find the complete lyrics....I found description for each movement of the Messiah...but not word for word please help!

Thank you for reading this long long message. And thank you for any input you may have.!

WinnyHuangatEcontact (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It might be appropriate here though, Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@WinnyHuangatEcontact: You cannot make the draft suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a repository of complete lyrics. Complete lyrics in the public domain may go into Wikisource, but not Wikipedia. Messiah is already in Wikisource, so you are reinventing the wheel. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

15:59:59, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Brunapickler[edit]

Brunapickler (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brunapickler: - this biopic doesn't include anything that would make the individual, by Wikipedia's standards, WP:NOTABLE. Re-writing and re-phrasing won't change that. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

18:07:09, 20 March 2019 review of draft by Student245[edit]

I am making a Wikipedia page on this person for a assignment for my class. I am very new to Wikipedia so I am still learning how to correctly create this article. I have means to go back and edit this article continuously, but the only option I was given to saving the work was to publish and I really just wanted to save what I had. If there is a way to just save the draft without publishing until the article is fit for submission, how do i save my draft so i wont get deleted? Again, the only reason I am a user on here and making a article is due to a assignment given by my instructor to write a article on a artist in the field of electronic media who has no wiki page and or create a mock wiki and write up some research on them. How do you save a draft page without publishing?

Student245 (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Student245: - hi there. This is one of the easiest mistakes to do with drafts. Almost everyone does it at some point.
On the plus side, going to "edit", editing, and now hitting "publish changes" won't submit it for review. That phrasing is required by Wikimedia to indicate that your words will be open to the public once you write them (though you'd have to know it was there to find it, at this point).
Keep making edits until you're happy with the draft. At that point, hit the blue "Resubmit" button in the red box on the page and it it will come back for review. Hope that helps! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

19:20:22, 20 March 2019 review of submission by John-Ware-wiki[edit]

John-Ware-wiki (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Not doneThis was a totally shameless advertisement, and has been deleted as such. Author has been warned about spamming and COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

22:18:59, 20 March 2019 review of submission by Scifietronica[edit]

I thought I might get a rejection but it came before I could complete my Talk explanation of the rationale for the article. Please see my comments in the Talk section. I believe my Talk comments/article justification answers the reason given for the rejection which is that the content of the article is already on WikiSource. Here are some additional thoughts:

  • It is not quite true that the document is already on WikiSource. Just like at NARA, WikiSource breaks up the the U.S. Constitution into its component parts.
  • While people knowledgeable in the Constitution understand that the FULL Constitution includes the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the additional Amendments (11-27) - MANY LAY PERSONS AND FIRST TIME READERS WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. They will just click on the U.S. Constitution link and think they have it. Many people, including non-U.S. citizens in the U.S. and around the world, might misunderstand that the text of the "U.S. Constitution" is not complete and they have to read it along with the Bill of Rights and the Amendments.
  • This pattern of separating out the parts of the Constitution is repeated at many sites but if you buy a printed copy of the "U.S. Constitution" it will contain all parts in one coherent document.
  • About 55% of Wikipedia articles are read on a person's phone. Imagine how difficult it is to read and study the complete Constitution or find a reference when you have to search between three documents!?
  • Students and others may want to print and study the Constitution. A single article with all of the component parts of the Constitution without any editorial notes, commentary, etc., is needed so it can be printed off as a single document for study.
  • Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia. Imagine if a print encyclopedia put the Constitution in the "C" volume, the Bill of Rights in the "B" volume, and the Amendments in the "A" volume? Even given cross referencing, how many students given the assignment of reading the Constitution in the encyclopedia would fail to figure out they needed to pull all three volumes and read all three articles? More importantly, how many students or other readers today are missing one or more of the components when they search online for the Constitution today?

Okay, I think that's all I have.

Thanks, Scifietronica (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scifietronica. You are welcome to set up your own website and place the Constitution on it in any form you wish, but you may not do that on Wikipedia. Attempting to do so is fundamentally against the purpose of the encyclopedia, which is not a repository of primary source documents. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 23:02:02, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tony Mosley[edit]

Hello, I'm chasing down a page that has been previously unsuccessfully submitted to draft review, and now the page that was previously a draft version has been removed and a redirect to an unrelated page is in it's place.

I'm still interested in editing the article for resubmission but now I'm facing the prospect of having to rewrite the article contents from scratch... which I would prefer not to have to do.

The page was here

then ...

(cur | prev) 06:57, 18 September 2018‎ Robert McClenon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50 bytes) +50‎ . . (Robert McClenon moved page User:Tony Mosley/sandbox to Draft:Nick Mitchell: Preferred location for AfC submissions) (thank) Tag: New redirect

and now doesn't appear to exist at all.

Is there a way of pulling the article back into my sandbox area at all?

Tony Mosley (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tony Mosley Greetings. Here is your draft article [1]. You could copy the text and recreate the page under different subject name such as "Nick Mitchell (fitness)" as there is an existing Nick Mitchell article in English Wikipedia. Pls pay attention to the comments made by the reviewers. At the present stage the page is not notable and appears you have a close connection to the subject which means you have an conflict of interest here (COI). Wikipedia is highly discourage editor who has COI edit/create an effected page and disclose of COI need to be made - see WP:DISCLOSE. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 21[edit]

00:10:35, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Icedrive209[edit]

Icedrive209 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

00:25:34, 21 March 2019 review of submission by McKensieSaunders[edit]

McKensieSaunders (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

03:17:49, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Draco Drastic[edit]

Draco Drastic (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Draco Drastic: - as the commentors stated, there are no sources in the draft (which needs more content, in any case) so there's no way that it can be accepted. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

03:24:57, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Maldunne[edit]

Maldunne (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

03:41:35, 21 March 2019 review of submission by WorldEntertainmentGroup[edit]

WorldEntertainmentGroup (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

03:41:35, 21 March 2019 review of submission by WorldEntertainmentGroupWORLDENTERTAINMENTGROUP

Hi, We need to put up BIO of J MICHAELS vocalist as many buyers, business partners and even FANS are asking us since 3 or more yrs why there are no info regard this artist / singer on WIKI.

Question: Do I need to setup account in name of J MICHAELS vocalist or can this be done under our account here WORLDENTERTAINMENTGROUP? There will be also

LOVE ROCKS! Shows and events to be added here, we are doing many shows around the world since 2008!

REgards, Greg

06:22:11, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Brunapickler[edit]

Brunapickler (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

15:29:08, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Marie Lemelle[edit]

Marie Lemelle (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am requesting a re-review because I have referenced every entry including published articles in newspapers. I have written and published more than 100 articles. I am an influencer.

I am a film producer as evidenced by IMDB at

I established Platinum Star Public Relations as a minority woman owned business.

As a former City of Glendale Commissioner and State of California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, I am a public figure.

Thank you for reconsideration.

Marie Lemelle Not done - promotional. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no interest in what you have written, only in what the independent sources have written about you. Your draft Draft:Marie Lemelle has no such sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Theroadislong I didnt aware I removed your message. It actually puzzles me that I have done that. Many apologies and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Cheers. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

15:35:56, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Marie Lemelle[edit]

Marie Lemelle (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am new to this process and missed the recommendations. I will remove the red links and insert the external links.

It is not intended as an autobiography but as notable contributions as a journalist and humanitarian.

How do i keep as a draft and make the corrections? Thank you.

Marie Lemelle greetings. Pls do not write about yourself or promote yourself in Wikipedia. If you are notable enough, there will be other editors write about you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

15:52:38, 21 March 2019 review of draft by PatGallacher[edit]

PatGallacher (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

An administrator has refused to accept a draft article about a person who I believe is inherently notable under WP:POLITICIAN. How do I go about appealing this decision? PatGallacher (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@PatGallacher: I've looked more closely at this and searched up the subject on the Internet. Will approve if the article is somewhat improved. Keep WP:BURDEN in mind. Notable people who aren't referenced properly may not necessarily get their articles accepted. You are welcome to resubmit after adding a few more references. Cheers! — Stevey7788 (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily against improving the article, but what you have just said seems to question the concept of "inherent notability". PatGallacher (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

16:21:18, 21 March 2019 review of submission by 007saahil[edit]

007saahil (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

17:10:20, 21 March 2019 review of submission by Scifietronica[edit]

Okay, I get that my submission was rejected. Please send me an alert if you want me to do anything to delete the draft. I'm totally cool with that. I've copied the draft and will take your suggestion to post on another site.

Thanks, --Scifietronica (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Scifietronica (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

17:31:54, 21 March 2019 review of submission by TundraGreen[edit]

I don't understand why a professor with a few OpEd columns at major publications would not warrant a Wikipedia page. I added the page because I couldn't find one when I wanted to get more information about him. I figured if I was interested in his Wikipedia page, others might be as well. I guess I was wrong. TundraGreen (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi TundraGreen. See the Wikipedia:Professor test if you're curious about which professors warrant an encyclopedia article and which don't. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

17:32:51, 21 March 2019 review of draft by Anthropologialist[edit]

Anthropologialist (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

18:36:50, 21 March 2019 review of submission by MagicLemonade18[edit]

I need to create a page for someone who has been in movies, tv shows, etc. However, every time I try to find websites to cite each of his accomplishments, the entire article is rejected. MagicLemonade18 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

MagicLemonade18 Greetings. The reviewers have left comments on the draft page you created. Pls also see the message on grey panel on top of the draft page. Pls click on the blue highlighted texts for further information. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 22[edit]

Request on 00:44:22, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Bryce Holdaway[edit]

Bryce Holdaway (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for help surrounding my rejection re article. "It is not a place to post your cv"??? Not sure how to share information.

Hi Bryce Holdaway Editors may create a user page to share limited autobiographical information for the purpose of collaboration with other editors. If that was what you were trying to do with User:Bryce Holdaway/sandbox, then you do not need to submit it for review. Simply write at User:Bryce Holdaway.
It is draft articles that need to be submitted for review before being published as encyclopedia articles. If that is what your sandbox submission was intended as, then please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). --Worldbruce (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

03:51:09, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Esaïe Prickett[edit]

Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


Page is deleted at MfD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Battle for Dream Island. CoolSkittle (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

08:55:47, 22 March 2019 review of submission by[edit]

Hi, Vidfish is a video-streaming platform that is used by more than 500,000 in Southeast Asia, with a huge presence on social media platforms as well. It has many features in many publications (footnoted) as well. (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

11:42:41, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Osterreichforum[edit]

Please can somebody kindly publish the draft article into main article for Wikipedia. Helga Michie is a very notable artist

Osterreichforum (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC) }} Please will somebody kindly publish the draft article Helga Michie I have prepared. She is an important artist and subject of books and conferences. Osterreichforum (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC

Hi Osterreichforum. Part of the draft had to be removed because it infringed copyright. You may continue working on it if you wish, but write in your own words. When you are ready for the draft to be reviewed, click the blue "Submit for review!" button on the draft. --Worldbruce (talk)

Worldbruce Many kind regards. I will try that. Please also edit it if you have some time. Osterreichforum

13:46:30, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Srinath kandala[edit]

Srinath kandala (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Srinath kandala. You haven't asked a question, but presumably you want to know why David.moreno72 rejected as non-notable User:Srinath kandala/sandbox about E. Subbiah, former Member of the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu. Personally, I would have declined the draft rather than rejecting it as non-notable. An article on the topic already exists under a variant transliteration, E. Subaya.
If you have no conflict of interest, you are welcome to edit that article, but you may only add statements for which you can cite a reliable source, something you failed to do in your draft. See Help:Referencing for beginners. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 15:18:29, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fruitypebbles69[edit]

Hello, i need assistance on my article becoming "worthy of inclusion". At first i needed more references but once i added them i no longer got denied for references, Its now denied for not worth inclusion on wiki. I believe this is an error as my references/information meets guidelines. And there are other simular articles existing to the one im creating. thanks in advance

Fruitypebbles69 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your refs are to user generated content like Youtube. Anyone can put anything on youtube - no one checks it's accuracy. The topic is not notable and has been correctly rejected. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:28:47, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Niallpm[edit]

Oh dear! It’s very disappointing to see such a summary rejection and so quickly. I was given to believe that the review would take several weeks. Your comment I really doubt this would ever be accepted as an article is most perplexing.

From what I can gather, your objection is based upon this: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites).

The word notability is interesting. If this article truly is not notable, how then can you account for all the approved scholarly articles on Wikipedia, that either reference the website mentioned in our article or that use content from it? Namely:ăáné/RoumanieԹոմա_ՉորբաՄոլդովայի_Օլիմպիական_կոմիտեიუნესკოს_არამატერიალური_კულტურული_მემკვიდრეობის_სია_აზერბაიჯანშიéŁotianułdawiișanuă_pucioasăă_de_oameni_care_apar_pe_mărci_poștale_din_Republica_MoldovaăКатегория:Владимир_КурбетАндрунакиевич,_Владимир_АлександровичАнестиади,_Николай_ХристофоровичБаллиер,_Август_ИвановичГеоргицэ,_Дмитрий_ЕфимовичГригориу,_Григоре_ПетровичКогэлничану,_МихаилКуза,_Ефросиния_ИвановнаКурбет,_Владимир_КозьмовичЛипковская,_Лидия_ЯковлевнаЛотяну,_Эмиль_ВладимировичМатковский,_Дмитрий_ЛеонтьевичОлимпийский_комитет_МолдавииСтуарт,_Александр_ФёдоровичФитов,_Леонид_ЛюбомировичЧебан,_Тамара_СавельевнаЧерней,_ЕленаЧорба,_Тома_ФеодосьевичШмидт,_Карл_АлександровичЯллы_(танец)șta_MoldoveiýОфіційний_перелік_регіонально_рідкісних_тварин_Харківської_областіồn_hôi_thảo_nguyên

In most of the articles above, the content I refer to is images, downloaded from the website of the International Moldovan Philatelic Society, and then used in the articles. We (IMPS) have never once received a request from any of these authors. Nor have we been given any accreditation. We are only aware of this activity because all of the images on our site have embedded meta data which can be read on Wikipedia Commons and identifies the IMPS website ( as the source.

We have never made any objection to this, simply because we were happy to have information about Moldovan Philately propagated on Wikipedia. Additionally, it was always our belief and understanding that, when it came time to publish our own Wikipedia article, this would all be taken into account. Were we mistaken?

Clearly, based on the above list, the offending article about IMPS can hardly be considered as not noteworthy, by any measure. I am sure you will agree that it is not equitable for all these articles to be allowed to use content from our site, without accreditation, whist writing off an article about the source as not noteworthy.

Additionally, I am perplexed about the existence of so many Wikipedia articles published by other, similar organizations, with very similar content as ours. Some examples are…

There are many others. But I am wondering what special qualities these article have that our article lacks. In our article, we have tried to be totally impartial and to cite external sources for everything. We would consider the article we submitted for approval to be superior quality to the examples above, but apparently not. Can you clarify this for us.

It is also important to note the IMPS (and its website) have always been great supporters of Wikipedia. We provide fully accredited links to thousands of Wikipedia articles. You are most welcome to examine any page on our site to confirm this. Perhaps for example

Finally, based on the above, we ask you to reconsider your evaluation of the article. We absolutely admit that we are complete amateurs regarding the Wikipedia article writing process and the Wikipedia protocols and if we have made mistakes regarding the coding of the article, or if we have included some text or reference in error, we ask for your kind advice regarding corrections. In particular, regarding Wikipedia categories, we could use some guidance.

Niallpm (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft has zero reliable sources so cannot be accepted in it's current form, as for other Wikipedia articles please read other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

20:10:16, 22 March 2019 review of submission by Gato63[edit]

This is the hottest new cartridge of the decade, the most exciting new cartridge since the 6.5 Creedmoor! The .350 Legend stole the show at the 2019 Shot Show. Yes, it's not available for retail purchase until next month (April 2019), but it's available for pre-order at major retailers such as Midway USA, and there are already rifles and barrels available for it from CMMG (AR-15 uppers), Winchester Repeating Arms (bolt-action rifles), Match Grade Machine (MGM, for their TC encore barrels), etc. There's a video of MGM test-firing it here: and their overview of the cartridge is here: Despite the newness of the .350 Legend cartridge, there have already been feature articles about it in Guns & Ammo magazine and the current issue of American Rifleman magazine. Gato63 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This help desk is not the place for your refs - add them to the draft. AfC is an optional process. If you are sure anout Notability you can move it yourself. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

March 23[edit]

05:01:08, 23 March 2019 review of submission by Mblar32[edit]

Hi, I am requesting a review because all the information is referenced from other sites, i have edited and this is a real person who has done all these things.

Luke is current one of Australia's biggest exports when it comes to Mexican wrestling even Spanish fans have tried to make a wiki for him.

please advise me what i have to do.


Mblar32 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Not done as this author moved it to mainspace complete with copyvio even though a reviewer rejected it. Legacypac (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)