Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LotteryGeek (talk | contribs) at 01:47, 23 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


January 16

10:03:09, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Hit1985


Hit1985 (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


10:33:08, 16 January 2021 review of submission by 192.142.218.222

tell me the problems

192.142.218.222 (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft only tells of the existence of the company. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:34, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Ahmad Abazeed school

just don't.

Ahmad Abazeed school (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your user talk page, Wikipedia is free storage space. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:24:39, 16 January 2021 review of draft by Taiwania Justo

This article is done by adding the related sources. Please check again, thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 13:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:16:58, 16 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by 73.254.183.116


Hello! I received feedback that my article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:M._Riad_El-Ghonemy is not acceptable. The reasons cited were not helpful, and I am reaching out here to get more specifics. I found the feedback generic and vague, and I am sure there is a lot of subjectivity in this discussion on what is 'significant' coverage and what is a 'reliable source' or 'The article needs independent sources: i.e. sources other than the subject's own works' -- that is where I need some help.

The article refers to multiple publications that are not by the subject, not published by the subject, and are reliable sources themselves. In addition the subject has written multiple published works with proven track records of applicability and which are referenced in the article. I am puzzled why the reviewer left this feedback, and could use some guidance beyond what is in the Talk page entry that I reviewed carefully for more specific examples of where the article references fell short.

Thanks for any guidance on this. Examples of similar individuals' biographical pages, particularly thought leaders who worked at the boundary of Non Governmental Organizations (e.g., UNDP) and academia, to help me see an example or precedent of an 'acceptable to Wikipedia' article.

I do see that the works cited are all by the subject -- if that is the chief issue, I will go look for other sources, however it is challenging some times to find that when the subject itself is a prodigious thinker or prolific author, as we depend on someone **else** writing about the subject, which biases against mavericks and thought leaders who may not have had that kind of coverage in their lifetimes.

73.254.183.116 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:02:24, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Merabharatdesh


Merabharatdesh (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:21, 16 January 2021 review of submission by MattBiomathews


Can you please explain what notable is? what is required? I have been featured in news articles, podcasts, magazines, and TV. along with 12,000 followers on Facebook and 44,000 followers on Instagram https://www.instagram.com/matt_mathews/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/MattMathewsPhotos

https://medium.com/authority-magazine/author-matt-mathews-on-how-to-learn-to-finally-love-yourself-dfe58a0835fb https://homebusinessmag.com/success-stories-lifestyles/tragedy-triumph-self-love-matt-mathews-beauty-boudoir/ https://mylalifestyle.com/treat-yourself-dont-cheat-yourself-self-care-secrets-from-matt-mathews/ https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/real-talk-with/episode-1-hot-mess-express-HmUxt1B8KDb/ https://www.cbs42.com/news/local/birmingham-boudoir-photographer-reveals-all-in-autobiography/ https://www.photographersedit.com/blog/boudoir-style/ https://blog.stickymarketingtools.com/matt-mathews-specializing-marketing-increasing-your-sales/ https://larousseshoppe.com/blogs/packaging-branding-inspiration/90571334-featured-photographer-matt-mathews

MattBiomathews (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your autobiographical draft had zero sources, the number of Facebook and Instagram followers has no bearing on notability likewise mentions in blogs which are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No worries, just my way through. I do have an autobiography book, but it's not publicly published.(https://www.amazon.com/Uncovered-Naked-Truth-Life-Addiction/dp/0359802583/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=matt+mathews&qid=1610837203&sr=8-1) Viewers purchase the book to read. Would this book be a reliable source? How would you reference a book that is not a free public source? I would have thought magazine articles would have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattBiomathews (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your own book about yourself would not be an independent source, so no use whatsoever for establishing any notability, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:13:38, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Melvinblair


Melvinblair (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


22:32:09, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Melvinblair


Melvinblair (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:36, 16 January 2021 review of submission by Safmc

Hello, I have a question regarding article formatting. I am wondering if the article I submitted, Draft:Sophia Jensen, should not contain subtitles rather than containing one large paragraph. Considering that the article is a stub, is it acceptable to not divide it into multiple different sections? Thank you so much for any feeback! Safmc (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Safmc. Do not divide it into sections. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

08:13:10, 17 January 2021 review of draft by Damola33


My submission made 2 months ago hasn't been attended too by anyone.

Damola33 (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:04, 17 January 2021 review of submission by Midnight713

Thank you Padavalamkuttanpilla for the feedback. I am surprised that the references were deemed as not significant coverage. I can include more references if necessary. I imagined that the National Ballet company of a sovereign country would be worthy of a Wiki entry but am open to correction and can delete if references are not sufficient. Midnight713 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Midnight713 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been answered at the Teahouse. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:16:37, 17 January 2021 review of draft by Innovatao


I'm attempting to get this past initial draft, it was requested I put the page together, and as far as I can tell it has all of the reference and reference types requested by Wikipedia. However the notes I receive back only say they need more, but everything I can get hold of is on there. They are not an actress, they are an entrepreneur working for LQBTQ+ causes. I have had the page moved, mistaken for the fictional character, but nothing actually definitive. Could you please assist as I must be missing something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naomi_Bennett_(entrepreneur)

Innovatao (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:16, 17 January 2021 review of submission by Melvinblair


Melvinblair (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


20:52:15, 17 January 2021 review of submission by Sarika9140

Hello why have u rejected. State clearly.

I have used thejapantimes as citation, no useless information, no copyright violation, then why rejected? Tell plz Sarika9140 (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarika9140. The topic does not warrant a stand alone article. It is already covered more than adequately within Momo Challenge hoax. Spinoff articles should be discussed on the article's talk page as described in Wikipedia:Splitting. They are widely considered outside the scope of Articles for creation, and volunteer reviewers here may not take kindly to editors who waste their time by submitting spinoffs. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:15:07, 17 January 2021 review of draft by Softwaretestnews


I have received the reason for declining the article on Providence Office Products to be because the sources are not independent and reliable. All of the sources are independent and from reputable companies or media firms. Because I am new to Wikipedia editing, I would like any assistance possible on the steps necessary to improve the draft for publishing.

Thank you

softwaretestwriter (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

05:11:28, 18 January 2021 review of draft by Btspurplegalaxy


Btspurplegalaxy (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I'm requesting help because I need for someone to double-check my sources.[reply]

06:56:54, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Aslı Kırar

Need help me Aslı Kırar (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:33, 18 January 2021 review of draft by Sinfonicron


I am requesting help on behalf of Sinfonicron, a student-run light opera company at William & Mary. Due to the company's rich history and importance to the W&M community (which has been well documented by the W&M student publication Flat Hat, which is unaffiliated with Sinfonicron), we believe creating a wikipedia page is appropriate, but we have been told the article lacks references independent of the subject. The article has since been updated with more references from Flat Hat, but I am wondering if this is sufficient. I want to be careful, especially because the system mentioned a possible deletion if we did not fix the problem from before. Would it be worthwhile to include reviews from other organizations (outside of william and mary) as well? I just want to make sure I am properly addressing the issue presented.

Sinfonicron (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sinfonicron. Student publications commonly are given little or no weight in evaluating notability. In part this is because the writers are, by definition, still learning their trade. Also, they have a niche audience and small, local circulation. Their college's sports and other activities will be covered in their pages whether or not the wider world would consider them worthy of note. Any Wikipedia article would need to be based mainly on sources outside the college.
Searches of Google News and Google Books turned up nothing of substance in such sources. Past efforts to create an article on the topic have ended badly, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfonicron and Draft:Sinfonicron Light Opera Company. It would be better to improve College of William & Mary by expanding the sentence about the company into a paragraph. I've left more information on your talk page about how to manage a conflict of interest. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:38:09, 18 January 2021 review of submission by 2402:1980:828A:2EC6:C84C:71DF:A794:C1B4


PLEASE PUBLISH THIS TO PUBLIC I WANT MANY PEOPLE KNOW THIS PERSON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:1980:828A:2EC6:C84C:71DF:A794:C1B4 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:48:01, 18 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by NmuoMmiri


I would like to know why this submission is not considered significant when it is discussed in Wikipedia articles. The academic organization, Black in AI, is founded by leading researchers in the field of artificial intelligence. As a computer science researcher, the current Wikipedia article on Artificial Intelligence, does not reflect many of the current topics in artificial intelligence such as ethical artificial intelligence, ethical machine learning, and diversity in artificial intelligence. In my opinion, the current article on artificial intelligence is quite antiquated. I would like assistance in learning how to edit and propose articles in Wikipedia so they can reflect some of the more recent trends in computer science and artificial intelligence research. Thank you for your assistance.

softwaretestwriter (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NmuoMmiri. The draft is unacceptable because it fails to demonstrate that the organization is notable. It fails to do so because of the sources it cites. The first is a primary source interview with one of the founders of the organization, with no arms length analysis by the interviewer. It is not independent. The second is authored by a student organizer of one of the organization's workshops, and published on Medium, a self-published blog host. It is neither independent nor reliable. The third is a workshop announcement written by the organization. It is neither independent, nor significant coverage. The fourth is a blog post (don't confuse Forbes magazine with forbes.com/sites pieces written by contributors instead of staff). The author co-wrote one book with AI in the title, but it wasn't published by an academic or mainstream press. It is effectively self-published, by an obscure publisher of which she is the editor-in-chief, so it isn't convincing evidence of subject matter expertise. Her blog post is not reliable. Novice editors are commonly advised to cite at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources that contain significant coverage of their topic. The draft cites none.
Whether or not a topic is mentioned in Wikipedia articles is not a measure of notability. Neither is who founded an organization. That doesn't mean the organization is not notable, only that the draft fails to demonstrate any shred of notability. Creating new articles is overrated, and a terrible way for new editors to learn about contributing to Wikipedia. I, for example, edited the encyclopedia for eight years before creating an article. You don't have to wait that long, but it is much more effective to spend considerable time improving existing articles before trying to create new ones.
Existing articles are outside the scope of Articles for creation and this help desk. If one or more recent textbooks contain a chapter on ethical artificial intelligence, etc., feel free to be bold and add a section to Artificial intelligence summarizing the significant viewpoints on the topic. If you want assistance with that, start a discussion at Talk:Artificial intelligence, one of the WikiProjects listed there, at the general purpose Help Desk, or the Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Worldbruce Thank you for your response, it was very helpful. I understand your hesitancy when approving this entry as I also was somewhat skeptical until I conducted more research on the organization. It is quite a large organization and I am confident that it will eventually appear in Wikipedia whether I enter it or not. I will take your advice and begin to edit existing pages rather than entering new pages. However, I see quite a few topics from computer science that are missing entirely. I assume that my entries will be reverted often but I will attempt it anyway. Thank you so much for your guidance. I will visit the talk page at Artificial Intelligence and review the other sources you provided. Thank you for your conscientious criticism.

NmuoMmiri (talk)

14:48:10, 18 January 2021 review of submission by AryanKhanna475


Hi! What can we do to publish this article on wikipedia. It would be great if you can give us some advice on what needs to be changed. All the references have already been attached to the article. It is one of the biggest debating societies in Asia and conducts various events for discussions on crucial issues. Its an engaging article for many people within the country and interested in debating

AryanKhanna475 (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AryanKhanna475, please don't use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes. Wikipedia is neither a social network, nor a webhost, nor a platform for promotion. Also, it appears that you have a conflict of interest with the society. Please go through the conflict of interest policy. JavaHurricane 04:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:58:35, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Mjkboston


Hi, I am confused. Intellectual property, patents and trademarks are not a niche topic. I added a very recent and major reference from the WSJ that talk directly about this and a number of publications published by the Board Members of CIPU are also well published.

Do you want me to write more about intellectual property? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property


Mjkboston (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:47:25, 18 January 2021 review of draft by Giuseppe Ardolino


Hi, I received the review result of my draft page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sadas). It has been declined due to not neutral point of view and some references to modify. I asked for more details to improve my page and I am waiting for an answer from those who declined my draft's submission. It's possible to receive other details (on which sections and references to change) in order to move on to edit and publish? (I modified more times my page thanks to a lot of contributors, but I don't understand why it's not still ready to be published). For any kind of information, I am totally available. Really thanks so much for your availability Giuseppe Ardolino (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:19:27, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Srimant ROSHAN

I am requesting for this article to be published, because when I was read the Wikipedia article on Shahu I. In that subsection of family ther is a mention of two son of Chhtrapati Shahu I from his two wife. But when I searched about that two son ,I get some websites who says about two sons but no name of that sons and finely in a article of royal ark describing about genealogy of Chhtrapati Shahu I a name of a son of Chhtrapati Shahu I and his wife Sagunabai was described but another 1 was unknown. And I have find a family tree of Shahu I in that also the same name of son and same name of wife was shown with same lifespan of that son as that shown in a royal ark article .So, that I requesting Wikipedia to publish this article.

Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He died in 1730 at the age of 2-3 years, what could he have possibly done to become notable? Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is there any content in the draft that could be merged elsewhere, since neither Royal Ark nor The History Files is a reliable source. "Fact, legend and imaginative reconstructions are hopelessly intermixed", in the words of one Wikipedian. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:47:50, 18 January 2021 review of submission by ThatOddEditor

Hi there, thank you for the quick review, previously there were insufficient references and information to the career of Ben Hum and I have further added on and included more about him. There are some sources which we are currently unable to quote due to his existing contract with his well-known management company 2mm Entertainment (can be searched wiki as well). Hopefully you could help to approve and we would be adding on his career details moving forward on a regular basis. Really appreciate your help! Thank you! ThatOddEditor (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:20:31, 18 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

Hello, I updated the JumpCloud draft with more information discussing company product and funding history, alongside inserting independent sources to support this information. I am wondering if the recent edits will allow for the draft to be accepted and published? Thank you. Barouy13 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Request on 22:56:38, 18 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by RavensEyeArt


In reference to draft: Jamey Stillings 1. I do not understand specifically where additional citations are needed or which citations need further information, sincere effort was made to read and follow wikipedia guidelines but as a newbie I appreciate I may not fully understand and so would appreciate further input. 2. It was requested to "cut down the bibliography to only a few of the most notable works", is that refering specifically the "SELECTED EDITORIAL PUBLICATIONS" section or elsewhere? Are there current inclusions that are suggested for removal? I will be most grateful for any RavensEyeArt (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)assistance and hope to continue to edit the article for further review. RavensEyeArt (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

02:26:37, 19 January 2021 review of draft by TipsyElephant


I was hoping to publish the drafts for some podcast awards so I created Draft:2019 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards, Draft:2020 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards, and Draft:2021 iHeartRadio Podcast Awards. I based these pages on 2019 iHeartRadio Music Awards and 2020 iHeartRadio Music Awards. All three of my drafts were rejected for having WP:ROUTINE coverage, but both the 2019 and 2020 podcast pages have more sources than the corresponding year for the music awards. Would it be possible to reverse the decision to decline my drafts or is there a way that I could improve the article so that they meet notability guidelines? If not then why are the music awards notable and if they aren't should I tag those for deletion as well? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:41, 19 January 2021 review of submission by ThatOddEditor

Hi I would like to request for a re-review and also some pointers as to why subject matter does not qualify for notability in this sense as mentioned person has significant works in his field of expertise. Please kindly advice how I could proceed to appeal this decision. Thank you so much! ThatOddEditor (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, profiles and spotify are not reliable independent sources and would need to be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:17:07, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Sadaf kashmiri

Please let me know the reason why my article has been rejected and what should I do for improvement Sadaf kashmiri (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That purpose is to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. You essentially wrote a resume. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:35:50, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Pumpkinbanter123


Hello! I've taken the advice on the article published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pickupp and changed the content such that its much more factual than promotional. Can I check if this works better?

Pumpkinbanter123 (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkinbanter123 Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a company and what it does. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Your sources seem to be press release-type stories, announcements of routine business transactions, or announcements of what the company does. Things like that, along with staff interviews and other primary sources do not establish notability.
If you are associated with this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:06:10, 19 January 2021 review of draft by Jin at Samsung Galaxy official


11:06:10, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Jin at Samsung Galaxy official

I've submitted my drafts several times, and I'll like to understand in a more specific indication to the article where I'll need to work on, to avoid multiple rounds of revision.Jin at Samsung Galaxy official (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jin at Samsung Galaxy official If you represent or work for Samsung, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you are required to make; paid editing is required to be disclosed per the Wikipedia Terms of Use.
Your draft just tells about the event you are writing about. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the event, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event. Wikipedia is not interested in what the representatives of an event want to say about it, only in what others completely unconnected with the event have chosen to say about it. YouTube is rarely considered to be a reliable source, especially if the videos are from the subject themselves. Press releases and routine announcements are also not acceptable for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:47:06, 19 January 2021 review of draft by Callmejones


Hello, I would like to get my Draft reviewed again. I don't understand why the OFFICIAL Social Media couldn't be used as reliable sources, I mean they were from the OFFICIAL VERIFIED CHANNELS, so they should work. As the person is a Social Media personality, it's obvious for him to have such sources. It's not just words either, there's literally videos of him.

Anyway. I removed major parts of the social media references except two. Please review and let me know if this works.

Thanks!

Callmejones (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Callmejones, see WP:SPS. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability because they are not reliable sources, whether the account is verified or not. Statements on verified accounts can be used only in a few cases: see WP:ABOUTSELF. JavaHurricane 14:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Callmejones (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, what could be done? The person ain't getting the page now???

Callmejones, Notability on Wikipedia is determined by if the person has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Additionally there are other parameters for notability mentioned at WP:BIO. If you can demonstrate that the subject passes the basic criteria of notability for people or passes the other criteria at WP:BIO, the draft may be accepted. JavaHurricane 04:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JavaHurricane: Callmejones (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on him. I guess it's not enough. What do you think?

15:44:00, 19 January 2021 review of submission by Imtiyazrasoool

Thanku for reviewing tis article . I have made some changes please review it back Imtiyazrasoool (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected and tagged for speedy deletion so it will not be reviewed again. Theroadislong (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cash Chat App Article deletion.

16:21:00, 19 January 2021 review of submission by David Waynans

I am writing an article about Cash Chat and this has been declined and deleted many times yet this is not promotional its actual and true content about Cash Chat and the history about how it started and how it has progressed with citations and references, How can i be helped.

here is the article:

Cash Chat, now mainly Known as CashChatApp, is a Ugandan Social Media, Digital advertising and Financial Technology App built for messaging, digital advertising and financial services merged in one platform. It allows users to Chat one on one,Live streaming, Make chat groups, advertise, send voice messages, make voice and video calls, and share media files. Cash Chat application runs on mobile devices accessible via only Android devices. The App service requires user to use their preferred mobile number for registering with the service.

The Cash Chat application was created by Cash Chat Limited located on Semawata Road Plot 146 Ntinda, Kampala, Uganda. The Application has options of accessing it world wide and with different user locations. However, this app services like financial services are strictly accessible by users from East African countries while other countries can only access live streaming, instant chats, advertising, Voice and Video Calls.

2017-2018 Cash Chat App was founded by Asher Namanya Asanasio a former Expert in Telecommunications, finance and technology and Roger Magezi commonly known as Tywan as a Software Engineer, these two first started as Bold Cashers which is the main wallet for financial services in early 2017 and as numbers grew Asher Namanya proposed an idea that would include financial services merged with social media and in 2017 December Cash Chat was introduced first as a web application to help bold cashers and ease communication between members and this product failed and did not work according to Asher Namanya, and thats when they started a mobile app version for ease accessibility and mobility.

In November 2018, Cash chat was launched in Nairobi where it was piloted before it could reach other countries, Uganda, Rwanda and other European countries. Cash Chat team has worked closely well with Vrinsoft Team to ensure quality product and development of the stable app versions since 2018-to-date.

Asher Namanya got the name Cash Chat, Cash to represent finance and chat to represent social media knowing that this would be easy for users to get attracted to finance and social media at the same time. Cash Chat first worked under bold cashers limited as a product and in 2020 December it has been incorporated as Cash Chat Limited to manage her own products and services and now bold cashers remains as wallet for merchants, and bulky payments and this has not ceased from operating within cash chat mobile app.

In February 2019, Cash Chat launched user earnings and digital advertising where users would benefit from the services by earning from user status, allowing users to benefit from the app by earning or sharing revenue from Ads sponsored by companies that advertise on their user status. Cash Chat has recently been upgraded upgraded to 1.19 version which has increased the number of users to more-than 500,000 within active users 250,000 monthly. Cash Chat levies some fees on using its financial digital wallet to access payments and only this is available in Uganda, rwanda and Kenya countries where by users can send money from the wallets to different Banks in Kenya, can make mobile payments to different merchants and also send money between themselves from wallet to wallet respectively. in December 2020, Cash Chat made 2 years with Expected Revenue 3.8 Billion Shillings per year and most this money comes from user wallet activations, advertising and merchant payments.

In February, Cash Chat appointed Anna Talia Oze the NBS TV presenter to be her Product Ambassador

References.

[1]


David Waynans (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1. KTN News, Money transfers and Payment service, Standard Media, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ktnnews/video/2000180498/cash-chat-a-social-media-app-that-offers-money-transfer-and-payment-services-your-money 26, November, 2019 2. Solomon Obwoto Social Media and Money, Tech Jaja, https://techjaja.com/is-the-ugandan-cash-chat-app-an-alternative-to-whatsapp-pay/, 26th/ May/2020 3. Kenneth Kazibwe, Business News-Nile Post https://nilepost.co.ug/2020/05/06/cash-chat-app-upgraded-for-effective-user-experience/, 06/May/2020 4. NewVision Media, https://www.newvision.co.ug/news/1533957/cash-chat-launches-learning-live-streaming, December,2020.

17:15:49, 19 January 2021 review of submission by 94.36.183.116

Really frustrating! I provided tens of links to independent articles and pages which talk about Space Renaissance as an organization, its publications, events, initiatives. Yes, i also inserted links to the SRI websites, papers and articles. So, please i'd like to know what is the main issue: a) there are too many references to the association's publications b) the independent sources are not considered good enough

btw, i had a look to some friend organizations wiki page, that were accepted, such as Lifeboat Foundation, the Mars Society, the Moon Society. More, i took such pages as a sample, to help my search for useful links on the web... However, their pages were accepted, the Space Renaissance International not. SRI exists since 2008, it is rather known at least within the space community, we have hundreds of published papers, and many of us use to participate to the International Astronautical Congress each year. Our papers hold a good reputation on Research Gate and Academia.edu. So, what's wrong with SRI?

Thanks for your help, dedicating your precious time to analyze our case. Kind Regards, Ad Astra! Adriano V. Autino, SRI, President

94.36.183.116 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must read the conflict of interest and paid editing policies for information on formal disclosures you must make. Other articles should not be cited as a reason for yours to exist; see other stuff exists. It is possible those articles could be problematic as well; as this is a volunteer project, it is possible to get inappropriate content by us. We can only address what we know about. I would say that the primary issue here is "b". A Wikipedia article should only summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization says about itself, only in what others choose to say about it. Most of your sources seem to cite the existence of papers or work you do; that's not what is being looked for. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I wonder if i can profit of your kindness for some more questions, to better understand the matter.

1) BEING PAID OR NOT BEING PAID I have already stated to the WP authority that i am not paid for what i do on the Space Renaissance International page. I am the president of this not for profit association incorporated under the Italian law, and the Italian law clearly forbids a president to be paid by his own association. Furthermore, i am throwing thhousands of volunteer hours into my association since its birth: I don't understand why i should want to be paid for this particular activity! Question: should i "disclose" any more proofs that i am not paid? Then i wouldn't know how to comply, since of course proofs could exist only if i were paid, the opposite is not possible.

2) SHOULD A PRESIDENT BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THE WP PAGE FOR HIS OWN ASSOCIATION? Now, once we (hopefully) cleared that i am not paid, the next question is: am i having a Conflict Of Interest, just because i am the president and i am doing everything as a volunteer? This seems to be a stupid question, however, believe me, i didn't understand.

3) IS IT WORTH TO KEEP ON INVESTING OUR TIME ON A WP PAGE? - I provided many references to external sources that are writing about SRI on their own, without being requested to do that. Let's call them RT-01 (Ref Type 01) - I provided many references to external sources that are publishing, or re-linking our articles, pages and papers on their own, without being requested to do that. Let's call them RT-02 - I also added links to sources that are internal to SRI, but i believe they are needed, if we want to give a portrait of the association. RT-03 - Finally, we might have some links to sources that are external, but somehow "near" the association. RT-04 The main question: should we let live only the RT-01 items? Or, maybe, the WP autority is saying that none of our supposed RT-01 are really RT-01? If so, i should give up, waiting for some real RT-01 (or, better, items accepted by the WP authority) to exist. It is paramount important for us to understand whether we should keep on investing time on a wp page, since we have a congress this year, and things to do are overhelming. https://2021.spacerenaissance.space/

Thanks a lot for your patience. Kind Regards Adriano V. Autino — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianoAutino (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:42, 19 January 2021 review of submission by WriticBee


WriticBee (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


January 20

00:13:51, 20 January 2021 review of draft by JCWrites


JCWrites (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hey there my name is Jeff and I'm kinda confused why the article I am trying to public is being declined, it says because it appears to be a promotion or something like that but I'm not getting paid or being told to write this. I have recently started writing articles on different sites about up and coming artists, rappers, singers, influencers, and just people who id think are good to write about. I added all the sources I got my information from and I just want to know what I need to change so that my future articles don't get declined either

JCWrites Part of the issue is that you are writing in the style of a biographical piece and not an encyclopedia article. I would suggest reviewing Your First Article and using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to write an article; writing an article is the absolute hardest thing to succeed at on Wikipedia, it takes much time, effort, and practice, and diving in without experience and/or knowledge usually is not successful. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

00:21:23, 20 January 2021 review of draft by JCWrites


JCWrites (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Question by 103.134.115.143

my article has been declined and I'm not completely sure why, I added sources and I'm not even writing about my self or promoting someone. idk what To do know

Sandeep kr.Narayan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.134.115.143 (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:00:25, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Charikagomeda

this is a school histiry of Vijitha Central College.why my page is not accepted ? how can i resolve and publish? Charikagomeda (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charikagomeda The reviewer left you a message on your draft telling you why it was not accepted. It appears that the college does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization, at least based on the sources you provided. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:01:44, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Rajinder Singh Meena

07:01:44, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Rajinder Singh Meena


Rajinder Singh Meena (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:35:45, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Rajesh84Kumar


Rajesh84Kumar (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created a Wikipedia page for “North East Centre for Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR)” yesterday, and it’s been rejected continuosly. I’m new to Wikipedia and I’m having trouble understanding what I’ve done wrong. Please guide on how to get the page published.

Rajesh84Kumar Wikipedia does not have mere "pages", it has articles. Your draft has been rejected because it does not summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the center, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. In fact, you offer no sources at all. A Wikipedia article does not just tell about something. Please see Your First Article for more information.
If you are associated with this center, please review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you could be required to make. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North East Centre For Technology Application and Reach (NECTAR) is already defined in the below two pages - 1. List of agencies of the government of India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agencies_of_the_government_of_India#Department_of_Science_%26_Technology

2. Department of Science and Technology (India) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Science_and_Technology_(India)#Autonomous_S%26T_Institutions Rajesh84Kumar (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please place follow up comments in this existing section, instead of creating new sections. What you say is not the issue; please see my comment above. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not able to follow your instructions. Please guide. Also, let me know if the article can be published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajesh84Kumar (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh84Kumar It will not be moved into the main encyclopedia until the draft does what I have stated- summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about the center. I can't do this for you. There is no deadline for drafts; if you need to take some time to learn more about Wikipedia and how it operates, I would recommend that you do so. New users who dive right in to creating articles without editing experience or learning more about Wikipedia first often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings when their work is rejected, I don't want to see that happen to you. As I stated, you must declare any conflict of interest that you have. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You might try reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:37:15, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Ttwilliams01


Ttwilliams01 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:38:56, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Ttwilliams01


I would like to change the name of my draft Bishop Robert S. Williams. Can you please tell me how to do that? This is a biography.

Ttwilliams01 (talk) 07:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ttwilliams01 If you submit it for review and it is accepted, the reviewer will move the article into the encyclopedia and put it at the correct title. You could leave a note on the draft talk page about it, though. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:42:52, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Swansonnery


The last time the article was rejected was due to the topic not being relevant enough, if I am not mistaken. I believe it is not the case anymore, as the topic in question (TasteAtlas) is growing in popularity and significance year after year. The results on Google concerning TasteAtlas are great in numbers—at the moment of writing this, the number is 438,000. I have not checked the same metrics the last time, but I am certain the number has increased numerous times since the last date of submission.

If the article is rejected again due to not being relevant enough, I would greatly appreciate some more detailed explanation as to why the reviewer(s) believe that to be the case.

Thank you for your time.

Swansonnery (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swansonnery The draft just tells about TasteAtlas and what they do. A Wikipedia article must do more, it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Brief mentions, announcements of routine business activity, staff interviews, the company website, and other primary sources do not establish notability. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:25:06, 20 January 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by MellymelDot2Dot


HI. I keep submitting my article and it gets rejected only for me to be contacted by the rejector saying that they can edit it and get it accespted for a fee. One of these ( ‪KartikeyaS343) has clearly already been blocked as I can no longer access his page, but "R. Gaurav" has sent a message too to the person I am writing about. I have included this below. I would like to know more specifically what areas of my piece aer incorrect and why. Thank you for your time. Best wishes Melissa Roskell



Dear Eden, I hope you are doing well.

This email is intended for the person who is overseeing the Wikipedia article creation of "Eden Phillips". If this email has not been sent to the correct department then please forward it to the concerned person.

I have 10+ years of experience at Wikipedia. I have created more than 290 articles over the time that includes over 150 biographies of people belonging to different professions around the globe. I have complete knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines including their deletion and inclusion policies. I have worked on Fiverr, Upwork, Guru and Freelancer.

While going through pending drafts at Wikipedia, I came across the draft of your biography that has not been reviewed for some time now. I can help you with the article publication on mainspace. I have expertise in creating encyclopedic content. I can fix the article, add more sources and followup with admins and reviewers so that the article can be reviewed and published as soon as possible. I can also expand the article with original research-based content.

Charges for my services are nominal which we can discuss once I receive a response from your end. You can hire me through any freelancing platform mentioned above. I can be hired through PayPal too. I will give details of my profiles at the freelancing platform later.

If you are interested then please send me a message for further clarification. I will explain my strategy in my next email. I will be happy to work with you. Looking forward to your response.

Regards Gaurav, R. MellymelDot2Dot (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:03:18, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Thecriclover99

Tried to provide many different sources, how can I get this article approved? Thecriclover99 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


13:09:30, 20 January 2021 review of submission by FredBensen

Im not sure what else to add but i stongly feel this has place as a wiki article as Cromwells father in laws being a Lord of the manor shows the political sway cromwell would have had access to further more i feel it is necassary for a full article as it outlines other prominent family that were lords of the manor. FredBensen (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:16:28, 20 January 2021 review of draft by Bhorais


I have been working on creating a Wiki page on Therming'. I have gone through a few iterations on creating verifiable references in the proper format, but have still received a rejection with the following message:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Can you give me some advice on how to correct any errors in the references? Also, I received the comment: Comment: Please directly cite the information within the text. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC). I thought my text did a good job of directly citing the references. What am I missing?

thanks for your help

Brian Horais Bhorais (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhorais I've removed the text of your submission as it is linked to above. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CITE for information on properly citing references. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhorais: I have done some work on the article to get it moving forward to acceptance. It still needs some work. Have a look at WP:REFB, which will help you create the references. I have did one already to get your started. I also changed the links to external links for example of the working, and added a gallery tags, so when you upload your images, you can bundle them in there and will come nice looking. If you need any further help, give me a shout. The article is mostly, it just needs in-place citations. REFB will show you howto do it. I couldn't find the images. I think they need uploaded. scope_creepTalk 17:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:05:30, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Imtiyazrasoool


Hello team , This is my first article, so i need some help. May you please check this draft and edit if i had done any wrong thing in it. And make sure to tell me how can i improve this article it will be pleasure for me. Thanku Imtiyazrasoool (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Imtiyazrasoool: As currently written, the draft does not indicate how WP:NPERSON is met. Press releases, routine announcements, interviews and other primary sources are of limited use. This draft would benefit from more reliable, independent sources with some coverage of the subject. See also WP:CSMN. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:11, 20 January 2021 review of submission by WikiEditorNumber9


Greetings

I would like to know what to do in order to have this article published, as I firmly believe in sustainability, and I am wanting to spread awareness about companies that offer sustainability in their investment packages.

Kind Regards WikiEditorNumber9 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditorNumber9: I am afraid "spreading awareness" fails Wikipedia's scope. The current draft shows no evidence of WP:NCORP. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:29:08, 20 January 2021 review of submission by Angusismydog

Why does this post not fit in the guidelines of Wikipedia and how does it go against the purpose of Wikipedia? Angusismydog (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for websites that launch one day. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

07:36:17, 21 January 2021 review of submission by Rena Mae Lee Tian

i added some references, this group is still new but they we're having big impact to the community right now here in iloilo city, philippines. i really wanna put them to wikipedia for more people to know their advocacy and be good towards animals. Rena Mae Lee Tian (talk) 07:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have 5 references to Facebook and one to a blog post, these are not independent reliable sources, you also have links to Instagram and Twitter, again these are not suitable, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:46:31, 21 January 2021 review of submission by Wettujggvbb


Please help me to get the article published Wettujggvbb (talk) 10:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wettujggvbb The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone; a Wikipedia article must summarize what published independent reliable sources like the news have chosen on their own to say about someone, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:17:12, 21 January 2021 review of submission by אור פ


Please help me to get the article published. as per User:Scope creep think is pretty decent article now and think he is probably notable, but he think it is probably better if somebody else review's it אור פ (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the physician is notable for his procedure, which seems to pop up, all over the shop. scope_creepTalk 13:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:17, 21 January 2021 review of submission by Barouy13

Hello, I am reaching out again as I have updated the JumpCloud Wiki page with more key information from independent sources including product history and funding history. I would appreciate if somebody would re-review the page and let me know if it is accepted this time. Thank you. Barouy13 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barouy13: There's too much marketing text - it makes you look connected. Please read WP:COI just in case, and make proper disclosures if you have to. There should be no spaces between the punctuation and the references. Section titles should be sentence case, not title case. Don't include funding or detailed product info in the lead section. Put a history section first with items in chronological order. Simple milestones go in the history, but leave the more detailed technical product descriptions for a products section. Make sure everything is properly sourced. Get rid of anything that says PR or Newswire. Remove the entire recognition section. That promotional info isn't that notable in the eyes of Wikipedia, and makes you look connected, hurting your chances of getting this approved. Good luck! TechnoTalk (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:01, 21 January 2021 review of submission by Guitarfan21

Hello, I have submitted a new article (Positive Grid) for review. The yellow "article submitted/ please be patient" box appeared very briefly at the top of the page but then disappeared, so I'm not sure if there was an error or if my article is really in the review queue. Any way to tell? Many thanks! Guitarfan21 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guitarfan21: aparently you didn't follow the instructions to the end. I am going to submit it for you now. Please make sure to follow the instructions to the end next time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:17:39, 21 January 2021 review of submission by CaliKatie

Hi - This is my first article creation and I believe the references are solid and meet the Wiki guidelines. Roy is a very accomplished artist and has several news and magazine articles that have been written about him. I selected the stronger ones as citations that also confirmed statements made in his bio (ie. award winner). The page was declined due to references not meeting requirements and I don't understand why? Perhaps I missed something and one or two references don't meet the requirements but I have seven references listed, including the Los Angeles Times. Can someone please help me to understand the error so we can get Roy listed on the Wiki as he should be. Thank you! CaliKatie (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CaliKatie: I made some modest improvements to the article, but couldn't find anything more significant in the sourcing department. What's there now isn't quite enough to demonstrate notability. For example, the first LA Times piece is good, but the other article is listed as an opinion piece in a local satellite publication, but it's not the main LA Times. I think the challenge is that there's not a lot of media covering surfer art. I thought for sure there's be more about the Etta James album cover, and put in the only source I could find, but even that is a bit promotional. You can keep hunting to see if you find anything more to add. TechnoTalk (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

07:45:09, 22 January 2021 review of submission by Dailogian

My article reference to the journal that has been published on international Journal Could you give me some advice regarding which part of my article that should be deleted so that it does not look like an advertisement?

Dailogian (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dailogian The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. There is nothing that you can do to change that. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:23:02, 22 January 2021 review of submission by Intern Communication

Good morning, I am writing because my draft was rejected because the text I entered did not contain citations of sources. I would therefore like to ask you whether it is necessary for a text to cite sources in order to be approved or whether it is possible to insert a text, in my case the biography of a journalist, freely, without the need to use external sources.

Intern Communication (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intern Communication Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a subject, in this case, a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. All information in an article must be sourced, especially in an article about a living person, which has its own special rules. Wikipedia is not a place like social media to just tell about a person.
If you are associated with this person, you must review conflict of interest and paid editing. I would also suggest that you change your username to be more individualistic(your real name is not required) and not that of a position. I've posted how you can do that on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:58, 22 January 2021 review of draft by Nilabh Shivam Thakur 2


Nilabh Shivam Thakur 2 (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nilabh Shivam Thakur 2 You don't ask a question. You have submitted your draft and it is pending review. This may take some time. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:19:09, 22 January 2021 review of submission by Rk2515

why my articla is not appoved. ? i have already follow all your WP:NFILM notability. and my film is in pre production film and is also listed in the international film database(imdb) you can check this link(riturn ticket) too. and star cast is already in wikipidia. plz accept this. Rk2515 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rk2515: I don't think you read all of WP:NFILM, because one portion of it, found at WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production."
Thus, you shouldn't be submitting an article about a film if you can't prove that filming began. "Pre-production" doesn't matter to us. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:20:28, 22 January 2021 review of draft by Dsalerno


Dsalerno (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm trying to get feedback on a recently submitted page. My impression is that I would do well to use the sandbox before re-submitting the page for re-review. You can find a link to the page below: 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rose_Matsui_Ochi

Is the sandbox the appropriate venue to request help with the page, or would this 'help desk' be able to review the page prior before I resubmit it?

Well wishes.

Due to how recently they passed, this article would fall under biographical protections, and as such the presence of unsourced claims is going to result in a decline. A reviewer has also noted it's not neutrally written. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:56:38, 22 January 2021 review of draft by Rk2515


why you remove my image its my own work if not belive you can find in intire internat.

Rk2515 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rk2515: You didn't specify what image you're talking about, so it's hard to help you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rk2515: I assume you refer to c:File:Return Ticket (2021).jpg. FYI, the argument that an Image is yours because it appears on the entire internet is a particular bad one, as this makes OTRS permission nearly required. Hence, I have a question: Are you realy the creator of that movie poster? Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were, I find it unlikely that the studio wouldn't have made them give up their rights as a work-for-hire. Also, Rk2515 should be aware that if that was their own work, they are effectively releasing that high resolution image into the Creative Commons. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:52:29, 22 January 2021 review of submission by Martymcflys

Hello, Can I edit more notable information on her article? Martymcflys (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's written in a highly promotional tone and contains strange statements, like that she has "five combined" children. Are they strapped together, or did she use glue to combine them? I'm guessing she used glue, since her education is in "collage". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:50:21, 22 January 2021 review of submission by JoshKaine

I'm requesting a re-review because I've added more reference's for the subject. JoshKaine (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All you've added are paid for spam sources. Those are not acceptable CUPIDICAE💕 23:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added more references to the subject
JoshKaine (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JoshKaine: You didn't add any new references since you opened this help request. Thus, your question has already been answered. Note also my comments on your talk page, since your multiple help requests are beginning to be disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Mikhail Lebedev

We urgently need a Wikipedia article on the famous neuorscientist, Mikhail Lebedev. Can you please finish the article on Mikhail Lebedev this weekend? It needs to be nominated as a good or featured article within 30 days. I Already started. Please see Draft:Mikhail Lebedev (neuroscientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1002142180"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy