Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

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

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

September 18Edit

09:23:13, 18 September 2022 review of submission by TaiyoHoneyMoonEdit

What kind of significance does Wizzard in Vinyl have for power pop artists not only in Japan, but also for the world's power pop artists? I stated that it is a certain label. Please review again. TaiyoHoneyMoon (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@TaiyoHoneyMoon: I'm not quite sure what you're saying or asking, but this draft has been rejected and will not be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

09:47:55, 18 September 2022 review of draft by ConcernsavantEdit

Concernsavant (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


@Concernsavant: you didn't ask a question, but your draft was declined for sounding like an advertisement. As for the list of sources you posted here, none of them look reliable (Prezi, Google Sites, "welcomebones666artworld", and Quora are all unreliable). — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC) and and and and and and Concernsavant (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
and he is a category of autistic artist here's the link Concernsavant (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Do us a favour and stop throwing random sources at us. "It's an advertizement" is an indictment of the writing, not the sourcing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing a shittonne of sources presented with little context. Will BHFH them when I get an opportunity. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Our world famous High End of Art World Magazine in "Art & Antiques" issue March 2016. "What’s New in the Surreal World" Surrealism isn’t dead—it’s dreaming. By Terrance Lindall And Young University is a private research university in Provo, Utah; it's already in the Scholars Archive-- "What's New in the Surreal World" by Terrance Lindall it's already in Surrealism & Postmodernist in the Scholars Archive · · And also "Lowbrow" art movement in Wikipedia" using this "Wikipedia Sources" this Art & Antiques issue March 2016 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Our world famous High End of Art World Magazine in "Art & Antiques" issue March 2016. "What’s New in the Surreal World" Surrealism isn’t dead—it’s dreaming. By Terrance Lindall And Young University is a private research university in Provo, Utah; it's already in the Scholars Archive-- "What's New in the Surreal World" by Terrance Lindall it's already in Surrealism & Postmodernist in the Scholars Archive · · And also "Lowbrow" art movement in Wikipedia" using this "Wikipedia Sources" this Art & Antiques issue March 2016 Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed the art world notable magazines 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Since you clearly refuse to listen I am going to make the case to the reviewers looking at the draft instead, though I strongly doubt they need it. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Exactly NONE of the sources you provide are any good. And this doesn't address the promotional nature of the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 04:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
collapse more long-winded source spamJéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Is Wikipedia 100% reliable?
So is Wikipedia a credible source? Many of the entries are well-documented, checked for quality and — as opposed to reference books — often completely up-to-date, but, 20 years after its creation, the online encyclopedia is not 100% reliable, because information can be manipulated, and sometimes almost undetectably.Jan 14, 2021
What is a better source than Wikipedia?
Encyclopedia Britannica Online
Electronic Text Cente.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
Free Internet Encyclopedia.
How Stuff Works.
Merriam-Webster Online.
World Book Encyclopedia. 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
(Redacted) Concernsavant (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
KUNSTHERZ by Prof Gerhard Habarta (Redacted) ( And 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. listed in Lexikon Surreal edition One & Two 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
According to Similarweb data of monthly visits,’s top competitor in August 2022 is with 51.6M visits. 2nd MOST SIMILAR site is QUORA, with 812.3M visits in August 2022, and closing off the top 3 is with 81.7M. {TAKE NOTE QUORA & Wikipedia similar site.] 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
(Redacted) and and and and and
Excerpted- You Tube 2001:4455:164:700:C1D6:5647:3A44:A31B (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't consider ourselves a reliable source, and your entire argument above, sources included, refuses to acknowledge anything I've said in favour of attacking Wikipedia on a matter which has long been settled. Given the concerns raised in the AfD and the tenour of your behaviour here, I have to ask: What is your connexion to the Williamsburg Art and Historical Centre and/or Banez?Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
We are concerns the people oppressed by your biased and your discrimination. And hope you consideration for Autistic Artist Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. will be qualified by your consideration and here's the reasons from Wikipedia articles: The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian. Bias is manifested in both additions and deletions to articles.
Once identified, the bias is noticeable throughout Wikipedia. It takes two major forms:
1]a dearth of articles on neglected topics; 2]and
perspective bias in articles on many subjects
Since Wikipedia editors are self-selecting, choosing to take part in Wikipedia rather than being forced to, for social class (only a relatively small proportion of the world's population has the necessary access to computers, the Internet, and enough leisure time to edit Wikipedia articles), articles about or involving issues of interest to other social classes are unlikely to be created or, if created, are unlikely to survive a deletion review on grounds of notability.
As of 2006, of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations, while only two of the sites were non-profit news organizations.[citation needed]
Perspective bias is internal to articles that are universal in aspect. It is not at all apparent from lunch (see tiffin) or the linguistic term continuous aspect that these concepts exist outside of the industrialized world.
A lack of articles on particular topics is the most common cultural bias. Separately, both China and India have populations greater than all native English speakers combined, or greater than all of Europe combined; by this measure, information on Chinese and Indian topics should, at least, equal Anglophone or European topics. However, Anglophone topics dominate the content of Wikipedia. While the conscious efforts of WikiProject participants have vastly expanded the available information on topics such as the Second Congo War, coverage of comparable Western wars remains much more detailed.
Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and little incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. Publication bias and full-text-on-the-net bias also make it more likely that editors will find reliable coverage for topics with easily available sources than articles dependent on off-line or difficult to find sources. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to go through the deletion process of Wikipedia.
----As Michael Snow and Jimmy Wales have said in an open letter:
How can we build on our success to overcome the challenges that lie ahead? Less than a fifth of the world's population has access to the Internet. While hundreds of thousands of volunteers have contributed to Wikimedia projects today, THEY ARE NOT FULLY REPRESENTATIVE of the DIVERSITY of the WORLD. Many choices lie ahead as we work to build a worldwide movement to create and share free knowledge.
While obviously it is no longer true that fewer than 20% of the world's population has access to the Internet, the overall issues remain. ------ Hopefully you understand the points of view we should be open mind to become diversity.... 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
If all you can do is copy-paste Wikipedia policy pages at us and scream bias as opposed to giving us an actual coherent argument, then you haven't been listening to what you're being told and further discussion about this is not going to be productive. And you haven't answered the question about conflict of interest. Barring a complete and utter sea change in your reading comprehension, I will be reverting all further edits from you that do not address these issues (the refusal to engage with legitimate criticism, obvious conflict of interest, and bothering-by-the-book) off this page as disruptive. We're not going to waste time debating and explaining policy to someone whose ability to comprehend what is being told is minimal or leased-out. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Concernsavant "[We hope your] consideration for Autistic Artist Bienvenido Bones Banez, Jr. will be qualified by your consideration..." We hope your consideration will be qualified by your consideration? What the heck does that mean? (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
here's the reliable source- 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I've already dismissed that source, if you'd actually paid any attention. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Useless for notability (too sparse). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC),_Jr./ 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't use (No editorial oversight/unknown provenance). This looks like it came from some sort of wiki and in any event doesn't have a listed author. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't use (No editorial oversight, too sparse). Contextless picture galleries are absolutely worthless as sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't use (No editorial oversight, too sparse). Why on earth are you citing an event flyer? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Can't assess (language barrier). The site's DDoS mitigation also negates automated translation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Unless it's from a news agency's verified account we can't cite YouTube, as I have already explained. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
(Redacted) ( And 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC) 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Your Google Books link is absolutely worthless for assessment (It says I've hit the viewing limit for the book). I've already dismissed Quora and Art of Imagination above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Our world famous High End of Art World Magazine in "Art & Antiques" issue March 2016. "What’s New in the Surreal World" Surrealism isn’t dead—it’s dreaming. By Terrance Lindall And Young University is a private research university in Provo, Utah; it's already in the Scholars Archive-- "What's New in the Surreal World" by Terrance Lindall it's already in Surrealism & Postmodernist in the Scholars Archive · · And also "Lowbrow" art movement in Wikipedia" using this "Wikipedia Sources" this Art & Antiques issue March 2016 2001:4455:164:700:10D9:B4A7:1E22:B0D8 (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
At this point you're literally rehashing the same garbage sources that have already been discussed above. This conversation is over. Any further replies will be reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 03:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@You are posting while not being signed in to Wikipedia now, just so you know. (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

15:31:56, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Chito KaiiEdit

I want to make an article on this rare film (whose survival status is unknown to me), but I can find no further info. Just the reputable Movie Weekly and the IMDB. I still search, but feel it’s hopeless. Would the reformatting I did help to get it through? I will try to find an image if it helps.

Same goes for the draft, “Draft:Duck Inn (1920 film)” by Mermaid comedies. Chito Kaii (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chito Kaii If you can't find reliable sources, then there is nothing to base an article on. Reformatting won't overcome a lack of sources, unfortunately. The article needs to summarize what the sources say. (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

18:41:36, 18 September 2022 review of draft by Sclystest1Edit

Hi, I've just created a Wikipedia page of Socialays (application), an artificial intelligence softwared social media management application. I also review the text with the tools called reFill and citation bot; and the result was no change necessary.

I've just wanted to let you know and be helpful.

Have a nice day!

Sclystest1 (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

18:54:17, 18 September 2022 review of submission by PatrickJWelshEdit

PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Answered on their talk page. Provided additional sources for inclusion in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Editor Gusfriend rejected this draft as lacking adequate sources.

I'm confused about what kind of additional sources are needed, however. It's a stub that only makes three claims. The first two are supported by citations: one is a university website, and the other is a scholarly Dictionary of Hegelian Thought (in which GdiG was deemed important enough to be given his own entry). The third claim is supported by the titles of his works (or so I would think), the list of which are taken from his CV, which is linked below and can easily be independently verified.

Thanks for your help, and sorry if the answers to this are obvious: this is only the second article I created from scratch.

Regards, PatrickJWelsh (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

(P.S." apologies, Gusfriend, for re-posting here what I posted in response to your Talk message. It just occurred to me that pulling you into a discussion there might be frowned upon.)

PatrickJWelsh, There is a full answer on the draft which sets out what we require from a reference. IN addition sometimes their work can be a reference, often not. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Timtrent,
For future reference, you could probably turn to sports or politics to find a less offensive analogy, that is, one that does not appear to compare a person to a manufacturing plant. (In this instance, the implication that I cite GdiG as a source for his own excellence seems to me false. But that is neither here nor there.)
It's probably also a bad idea to send an academic to a Wikipedia page that claims academics are only interested in boosting their own reputations, should be handled with kid gloves, and are very possibly only here to write articles about themselves under false pretense. Ouch!
You can find a model of a more productive and encouraging response on my Talk page.
Regards — Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@PatrickJWelsh I'm sure anyone can choose to be offended by anything. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Timtrent, your suggestion that people chose their emotional response is psychologically dubious, to say the least. (If only that were so!)
In any case, whatever your actual attitudes or intentions, please be aware that the response to my inquiry that you posted on Draft:George di Giovanni is perceived by this inquirer as decidedly uninviting (which, incidentally, is directly contrary to WP:ACADEME#How_can_we_solve_it?).
Cheers– Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Without taking any stance on the topic of the draft, given that the claim for notability rests on his scholarly work the dedicated guidelines for academics may be relevant. Felix QW (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

September 19Edit

01:50:06, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Tiana ShaoEdit

AEWIN Technologies Co., Ltd. is a member of BSG (Business Solution Group) under BenQ Qisda group ( BSG covers smart office, smart medical & manufacturing, targeting to be Expert of AIoT. Based on the information above, AEWIN shall be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please advise, thanks. Tiana Shao (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Tiana Shao The draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does- an article about a company 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. Not every company merits an article, it depends on the sources. If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

04:42:36, 19 September 2022 review of draft by YuKuroEdit

Hi, this is the my first creation of article. So I have read of all of wikipedia submit rules and policies. I carefully quoted with many reliable publishing / articles regarding this person(Christian Bessy). Could you tell me concretely what is the points of problematics?

I would like to know what is the point must be re-considered.

YuKuro (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@YuKuro: the majority of the citations are to Bessy's own works, hence why the reviewer said this needs more non-primary sources. And far too much of the content is unsupported, with several paragraphs without a single citation. (TBH, I don't think those are the only problems with this draft, but they are why it was declined.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@YuKuro In the decline notice, at the top of the draft, the words in blue are clickable links. These give very detailed information. (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

10:33:33, 19 September 2022 review of draft by

Need help to get the sources verified that are in a regional language (Marathi). A non-regional language moderator may not be able to verify the facts cited in Marathi language, and hence the profile may get rejected. How do we tackle this. Thank you. (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter in what language the sources are, when so much of the content is unreferenced, and so many of the sources cited are not reliable (Blogspot, YouTube, Amazon). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

11:41:32, 19 September 2022 review of submission by GreenyonderEdit

Hello, the draft for the UK band "Emperors New Clothes was not accepted although this band released more that 2 LPs with the label "Acid Jazz records", but it happened before year 2000. I have issues locating trustworthy sources of info. At the time there were news papers' articles about this band. If these articles only exist on paper form, can I point to a scanned version, or does Wikipedia only accept references as web links to existing website plateforms? This is a general question about older events only referenced by journalists at their time of release. Your help would be welcome. All the best Greenyonder (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Greenyonder: this draft currently cites sources which are no considered independent and/or reliable for the purposes of establishing notability per WP:GNG. While the band may (?) be inherently notable by one or more criteria of WP:BAND, we still need to be able to verify the information, especially but not only that related to the criterion/-a by which their notability is asserted.
If you cannot find online/digitised versions of the papers you mention, you can cite OFFLINE sources also, but you need to provide sufficient details of each source, so that others can locate and verify the sources if needed. Scanning and uploading article copies is not necessary. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

14:33:04, 19 September 2022 review of submission by PchowlaEdit

I just wanted advice on how to clear this for creation when the editor said the material is not notable. The draft references articles in major Western news media (Guardian, Financial Times, Forbes) as well as non-Western sources (e.g. Premium Times in Nigeria). I can add references for many other media, but that would seem to be excessive referencing for the same factual information about the Panel. Below is a list of news sources referencing the Panel but not included in references. I would like some guidance about how many to include and where in the article to include them in order to have the subject of the article considered notable enough.

Bloomberg: UN Tax Convention Needed to Solve Global Problems, Panel Urges

Electrek: Why global finance reform is crucial for green energy and climate action

EURACTIV: Global agreement on corporate tax rates needed, UN report states

US News:The Global Private Sector Must Foster Financial Integrity

Le Monde « Quatorze recommandations techniquement réalisables et politiquement viables pour lutter contre les flux financiers illicites »

Newsweek : Corruption and Tax Abuse Slow Action on Poverty and Climate Change

OECD : Financial integrity for sustainable development

Project Syndicate: Tax Havens Are Sabotaging the SDGs

Deutsche Welle: Des stratégies pour financer la lutte contre la Covid-19

CNBC Africa: UN FACTI Panel outlines action against systemic abuse

CNN: Panel de la ONU pide a países frenar la corrupción para afrontar crisis por coronavirus - CNN Video

Efe: Expertos de la ONU proponen medidas contra el fraude y la ingeniería fiscal

G1 - Ações contra corrupção podem ajudar combate a Covid-19, pobreza e crise climática, diz painel da ONU

MSN Noticas SFP pide transparencia a centros financieros internacionales

Clarín: Expertos de la ONU proponen medidas contra el fraude y la ingeniería fiscal

Pagina 12 Cuánto se pierde por los paraísos fiscales

Grupo La Provincia: Un panel de la ONU insta a recuperar recursos del fraude fiscal y el lavado de dinero

Todo Noticia: Expertos de la ONU proponen medidas contra el fraude y la ingeniería fiscal

Interpress: Blanqueo y paraísos fiscales, el lado más oscuro del sistema financiero mundial

L’Orient : le Jour recommandations de l’ONU pour un nouvel ordre financier

Agence Ecofin: Le FACTI Panel propose une réponse globale face aux risques qui pèsent sur le financement du développement durable UN Panel - Bankers, Lawyers, Accountants Enabling Financial Crimes 'Must Be Punished’

Pchowla (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pchowla I recommend reaching out to the editor who rejected the draft and providing the three best sources that show in-depth coverage by reliable and independent sources about the subject. See WP:THREE and WP:42 for guidance. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @S0091. I am tagging here @MaxnaCarta, the original editor. I thought the sources cited in the article - The Guardian, the Financial Times, and Forbes - were three of the best independent sources (including two different articles each in Forbes and in the Financial Times). Near as I can discern from the reliability guidelines, the news articles meet the guidelines. And they are independent journalism outlets. Would be happy to add more references if needed. Pchowla (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pchowla those sources largely regurgitate FACTI's reports and/or are largely what a FACTI representative states so are not independent. Also, one of the Forbes articles (Sarfo) is not a reliable source because it was it was written by a contributor rather than staff (see WP:FORBESCON). What is needed is in-depth coverage about FACTI, not what they have written or said. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @S0091, I see now. I thought a news article about the Panel and its report were the standard for notability (ie. an independent news source finds this notable). I have seen a lot of Wikipedia content which would not meet this standard as applied here, but I'm happy to try to bring this draft up to a standard that works. Some follow-up questions:
(1) How about paywalled sources? On the Sarfo article you mention as not reliable: this is actually a reprint in Forbes from another source. Ms. Sarfo is an editor at a separate specialist technical publication (Tax Notes - which has 100% paywalled content. Sometimes they republish their material at Forbes (which then turns her title from 'editor' into "contributing editor"). The original version is at taxnotes (published March 8 2021). I think this qualifies her as a subject-matter expert as per the linked guidelines - see her profile I don't think it is better to reference the paywalled version at taxnotes, but I can change this?
(2) Are academic blogs considered reliable and independent? A Harvard-based academic runs a blog on anti-corruption policy. He did a two part post analysing the Panel and its recommendations. See:, This is analysis, not just news, but I thought a blog would be not considered reliable.
(3) Would official references from resolutions of intergovernmental bodies be considered relevant for notability? The Panel and report has been referenced in a number of official resolutions from the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I can add these if that is helpful.
Thank you for any relevant guidance. Pchowla (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pchowla can you please repost these sources on the draft's talk page? This is getting too in-depth for the help page, but yes, pay walled is fine. S0091 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @S0091. I have added in the material on draft of the page and on the talk page. But I can't submit for re-review because of the past editorial decision. Pchowla (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pchowla Blogs are not OK, no matter who writes there (generally no independent fact-checking or corrections in a blog). (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

16:37:08, 19 September 2022 review of draft by

Wikipedia is full of articles about authors whose references are pretty poor: I've come across several ones which, undeniably, are poorer than the one I submitted, without too much effort in finding such names. I can report examples if need be. Needless to say, deciding if an author is worth a Wikipedia article is a delicate matter, but it is subjective above all: there can be no comprehensive, absolute criteria. Just a tiny percentage of authors can have "top" credits, like Nobel Laureates, Poet Laureates, and winners of important prizes (e.g., the Pulitzer Prize). Over 90% of the authors covered by Wikipedia don't fall in such a league, nonetheless they have their article, because they are published authors, I mean, published in notable, respected journals, quite regularly, and have authored one or more "real" books. So, if an author has been widely published internationally and has authored several books with real publishers (not publishing services or subsidized publishers), for me they're worth a Wikipedia article (as what I said at the beginning proves). Moreover, literary magazines publications are more relevant than books themselves, in most cases: there's no "cheating" about that! World Literature Today, for instance, won't publish any author whose work has little or no value, and that certainly is a renowned, independent source! I just included three remarkable publications: World Literature Today, Quadrant and Acumen, because I thought that three are enough (Wikipedia is not a list of publications, websites, etc.), being top literary journals in their respective countries (and covered by Wikipedia itself). By the way, Zanelli has been published also in three of the most renowned South African literary journals: New Contrast (South African Literary Journal), New Coin and Carapace, a few times in each of them. All the sources I cited, to be honest, are actually independent from the subject: the Library of Congress, for example, would never store and list self-published or subsidized books, and that's another authoritative source (the most authoritative library in the English language, I'd say). As to actual "references", i.e. coverage in a variety of secondary, independent sources, again that's not the case for most literary authors: you can find news about them and their work in literary magazines and on literary websites, but hardly in general media, unless they have won the National Poetry Competition, or the T.S. Eliot Prize, or have sold tens of thousands of books (which happens, maybe, to one out of a thousand published poets, including most of those covered by Wikipedia). So, really, I'd like to understand better what kind of references would actually "work", seeing that, for instance, the one by The Poetry Society (the most important literary organization in Britain, along with the Royal Society of Literature) is not considered one of those! Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that if the article had been created by a credited Wikipedia editor, it would have been OK, but it has been submitted by a simple poetry reader with very little expertise in the creation of articles on Wikipedia, trying to do it in the best and most accurate way regardless. Anyhow, as I said, I'd be most grateful if someone could further explain why the references I've found are not good, or not enough. Where has a literary author to have been published and covered if not in some of the most prestigious literary journals (like World Literature Today) or by the most important literary organizations (like The poetry Society of the United Kingdom)? Thanks to anybody who will take the trouble to reply (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please read other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, there is indeed inappropriate content on Wikipedia. This does not mean more should be added. If you would like to help us out, feel free to work to identify and address poorly sourced articles that do not meet notability guidelines.
Basic profiles and listings do not establish notability. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
IP, actually for an author my suggestion is first creating an article about their most notable work. If an author's work is not notable, then it is very likely the author is not notable. See the the notability guidelines for books. S0091 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

17:04:15, 19 September 2022 review of draft by Cutekosto3Edit

Cutekosto3 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have made all appropraite changes with citation. Can I please resubmit?

Thank you!

Hi @Cutekosto3, yes, you can resubmit by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the draft's decline notice. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Cutekosto3: I had a look at Draft:Gorfotu_Village but declined it because none of the references supported what you'd written. Please check them again. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

17:25:03, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Waterbucket123Edit

Waterbucket123 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Waterbucket123 do you have a question? I see your draft was rejected which means it will not be considered. S0091 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

17:27:31, 19 September 2022 review of submission by Tanzim ArmanEdit

I will write my own about why reject it Tanzim Arman (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tanzim Arman Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself. See WP:NOTPROMO. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

21:03:00, 19 September 2022 review of draft by MiadYUgceEdit

First of all i keep getting american wikipedians instead of european ones second of all i know my draft has source because i am actually a historian in macedonia i am 25 years old and i have alot of experience in history and i have sources from alot of books and alot of people like in youtube some guy called mario macedonian lessons. please submit my draft and thanks

MiadYUgce (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

MiadYUgce There is no way to guarantee that a reviewer is of a particular nationality, nor any way to even know for certain what nationality people are. The nationality shouldn't matter in any event. The main problem with your draft is that it does not read as an encyclopedia article, it reads as an essay. It also seems to duplicate an existing article, Serbian Cyrillic alphabet. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
i do not know that article. And also i dont know how to make a encyclopedia article. Thats why i made it in a essay type MiadYUgce (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@MiadYUgce: Demanding a user of a specific nationality look at your article is asking for trouble. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@MiadYUgce Your article does not cite sources from a lot of books. (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
i got told i need 3 sources so i put all the sources i had MiadYUgce (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@MiadYUgce In that case, you don't have sources from "alot of books". Quora is not a reliable source, since it is entirely user-generated (random people's opinions). Articles don't use the words "we" and "you" (and especially "u"). Question and answer format is not acceptable. You mention YouTube above, which is usually not reliable (with some exceptions). This draft needs a lot of work, but as 331dot says, WP already has an article on that subject. (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I know YouTube isn't reliable but I do know that he has sources of his history lesson's MiadYUgce (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

22:27:27, 19 September 2022 review of draft by GpcontributorEdit

Hi, what more sources can I add to make this work? I have the show being talked about on Good Morning America here: "The Hour" media outlet also covered the GMA appearance here: Will that help? A friend of mine reviewed the article and also included the show on Forbes, how it is distributed on, and more. What is the best way to share this information in the article? Gpcontributor (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Gpcontributor I fear that you may be too close to your show to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires- but the article needs to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notable web content. That usually means it should summarize in depth, unsolicited reviews of the series. I don't think the two source you provide here qualify; though I can't view the first link you provided, the second seems to be an interview with the host of the program, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Wow, thank you so much for your generous and helpful response. It's difficult understanding all the requirements, but I'm learning. Okay, so what about these pieces that are covered by the news or source itself? There were many times the news wanted to interview our host, as obviously a show/organization can't speak for itself.
Fox 5 News
Cheddar News
IR Magazine
Business Insider
Also, since I am considered too close (I actually don't own the show, I just work with them) if I have several friends take a look at the page and make edits will it help? I want this to be an unbiased piece. I believe it would be good for it to be neutral. But want to know how to achieve that since Wikipedia guards against (understandably) people too close to the topic presenting these materials. Gpcontributor (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Asking a friend to write for you only transfers the conflict of interest to the friend.
These sources you provided are announcements of the release of the program based on interviews with people associated with the program. The best indicator of notability is when an independent editor on their own takes note of reliable sources that discuss the topic and writes about it. You can give it a shot by submitting a draft for review, but the odds are not good. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

September 20Edit

05:35:47, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Hamza131974Edit

Hello, I am trying to position table on the right side of the text and so far I have not been successful. I have red some help articles on the subject but I did not made any progress. What do I have to do, and how to do it? Thank you for your help. Hamza131974 (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Hamza131974: not strictly an AfC question, you would be better off asking as the Teahouse, but all the same — are you perhaps trying to build an infobox, like the one seen in eg. Lauri Markkanen? If so, then you want Template:Infobox basketball biography. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the answer. I will try Teahouse. Hamza131974 (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
So that infobox template wasn't what you were after, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

06:58:32, 20 September 2022 review of submission by (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

hello And sorry to Bother Please i would like a chance to put this article on Wikipedia. I think this subject qualifies for an article and probably my article is not the most clear So I want to improved. But he s one of the latest prince Obolensky and i tried to put every source available.

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If those are the only sources available, he would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

09:56:37, 20 September 2022 review of submission by

09:56:37, 20 September 2022 review of submission by

Hi, I've made changes to the draft using references taken from Korean sources, since the game is based in Korea. I was unable to find the sources written in English. If you have any advice on how to make the page better, it would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

11:36:07, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Fico PuricelliEdit

Fico Puricelli (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

What is your question, @Fico Puricelli? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, my question is which sources I should be looking for prose books. That's all. Thank you. Fico Puricelli (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Fico Puricelli: well, any sources would be a great start, given that the draft currently cites only the author's own website, until we get way down to the 'Reception' section.
Slightly less flippantly, books can either be notable per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, or by meeting one or more of the criteria listed in WP:BOOKCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 11:49:37, 20 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by SerenityCrewEdit

Been writing an entry for a corporate client for a while now and slightly puzzled why the entry has been declined when its competitors and companies it partners with (Kaltura, Synamedia, Ateme) all have active pages. Am a journalist myself when not taking the corporate shilling and have vigorously tried to be as objective in its entry as possible. We're over a year into this process now and I honestly can't see a difference between what has been submitted and rejected here and what has been submitted and accepted on behalf of other corporations.

Any guidance gratefully received...

SerenityCrew (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@SerenityCrew: "its competitors and companies it partners with all have active pages" is irrelevant — see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This draft has to satisfy the notability requirements in its own right, which the reviewer(s) evidently deemed it doesn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Also regarding "Viaccess-Orca provides solutions and services primarily for the broadcast and video industry" see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

15:01:00, 20 September 2022 review of submission by KarstenBerlinEdit

I would like to know why my draft does not get accepted. It describes a compilation album as there are many pages on compilation albums on wikipedia. It is not a repetition as one reviewer was assuming as the cover is completely different from the other compilation and there are more songs on this album. Unfortunately I was unable to upload the cover as wikipedia told me there is no page for my upload. It seems draft pages are insufficient for uploads. I guess that would make it easier to see. KarstenBerlin (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @KarstenBerlin: if I understand correctly, the reviewers are saying that this draft duplicates Essential (Jethro Tull album), whereas you're saying they're two different albums, despite the same name — correct? (You can see why this might be confusing.) I think we would need to see demonstrably reliable, and inarguably clear, evidence of that; I'm not sure the sources currently cited are quite up to scratch. I don't think the different cover design is conclusive proof, as some albums were released with more than one design. The release dates could also refer to original vs. re-release (I'm not saying they do, just saying they could). If you can produce the necessary evidence, and assuming you can reference the draft more clearly (it currently has no inline citations, making it difficult to see which source supports what information), then there would certainly be a case for giving this draft another review. For more advice, see WP:REFB RE referencing, and WP:GNG RE notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

15:20:43, 20 September 2022 review of submission by Adhi krishnanEdit

Adhi krishnan (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

What is your question, @Adhi krishnan? This draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

16:19:58, 20 September 2022 review of draft by WovartEdit

Hello, I'm requesting assistance changing the name of my Draft. It doesn't include the artist's middle name and thus the system is trying to connect it with other Anthony Young articles but the artists full name that they us is Anthony Peyton Young. I tried following what I had found but the option to rename the article can't be found from my end.

Any guiandance would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you

Wovart (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wovart: seems this has been done already by Robert McClenon.
For future reference, don't worry about the draft title, it can be moved (which is what you're calling 'rename') to a different title when it's published, which is when it gets moved to a different name space anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

18:38:49, 20 September 2022 review of draft by Sillyrabbid69Edit

Sources attached are from verified reputable outlets. Can you verify what specific changes need to be made to get this page published?

Sillyrabbid69 (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sillyrabbid69 The sources are not reliable sources as Wikipedia defines them. Such sources must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. Interviews do not establish notability as they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
So independent articles are preferred? Out of curiosity, how do interviews with said subject not establish nobility? As an example, Cartoon Brew. They are a highly regarded magazine in the world wide animation industry. They don't just interview "anybody". Would a source like be considered a reliable source over an interview with said subject? Sillyrabbid69 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
No...due to persistent abuse, Famous Birthdays is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. Theroadislong (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Sillyrabbid69 Interviews are by definition not independent- they are the subject speaking about themselves. Interviews are not forbidden from articles, but they do not establish the notability of the subject. If you want to use an interview with him to cite his birthday, it might be okay, but an independent source would be preferable- because people can and do lie about their ages. A prominent media outlet interviewing someone does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
@Sillyrabbid69 Some, but not all, published interviews just repeat what the subject says, without any critical commentary, hard questions, or fact-checking. This type of interview is basically "what the subject says". That's why interviews are looked at with a skeptical eye. (What 331dot said.) (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

September 21Edit

09:00:29, 21 September 2022 review of draft by Ravisp2022Edit

In my draft article reliable sources and published news was provided but the draft was declined. Which news or source is not reliable in the article? Kindly advise.

Ravisp2022 (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ravisp2022: this draft was declined for failure to demonstrate notability, not for unreliable sources. (Although that said, there is content there which isn't supported by citations, such as the DOB and family members' names; this is contrary to the rules on articles on living people.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Those were corrected. Please advise on the most recent review i.e. on 7 Sept 2022. It says- they do not show significant coverage. Thanks Ravisp2022 (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ravisp2022: exactly; lack of significant coverage is the issue here, and that means notability has not been established. Yes, reliable sources also comes into it, in that the sources used to show notability must of course be reliable (as well as independent of the subject), but I repeat, this wasn't declined for unreliable sources, but rather for failure to show notability by citing reliable sources with significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ravisp2022 Maybe a minor point, but the actor "played a negative role in the film Majnu". What does that mean? Is it common in Indian English, for example? Second, do we need to know that he cycles in the morning? (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

10:18:36, 21 September 2022 review of draft by (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

11:29:00, 21 September 2022 review of draft by

We would like some advice on our declined Wikipedia submission. We have now submitted twice.

Every statement is supported by a externally verified source and they are all statements of fact. However, it is being declined. Please advise on what changes we need to make. We have reviewed the requirements and processes and can not see how the submission falls short. (talk) 11:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

11:55:01, 21 September 2022 review of submission by GelKingEdit

I have done as much research on this charity that I can, and believe I have updated it so that it is notable enough to warrant an article. Could it be re-reviewed and if it is still determined to be not notable enough, then I will move on and create different article.

Thank you. GelKing (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

13:26:32, 21 September 2022 review of submission by KarstenschubertEdit

What is the best way to get my company listed on Wikepedia, there are other institutions which focus on the same prefession on Wikepedia already - I am confused as to why mine has been rejected?

Karstenschubert (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Karstenschubert: we had this conversation a week ago; what more do you want to discuss? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
See other other crap exists. Seven different reviewers have concluded that the draft is not notable and it has now been rejected, please drop the stick. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

14:15:05, 21 September 2022 review of submission by Evie.rrEdit

Hey there, my article was rejected on the basis that I did not have sufficient reliable resources cited, I have now added additional resources, might I be able to receive additional guidance as to if this redraft is more suitable?

Evie.rr (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Evie.rr I removed a duplicate word "in" from the draft. (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Evie.rr (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

15:38:55, 21 September 2022 review of draft by AbetlaneEdit

I am unable to find any records or anything of the likes on the topic of SS Marschiert in Feindesland. I am requesting help for sources and references to this Nazi war song. If any found, please tell me in the talk page of my account, or the email on my account Abetlane (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Abetlane: this help desk is more for the AfC process itself, rather than for collaborating on content development. You might have better luck asking at the two WikiProjects you've included in the draft, namely MilHist and Germany. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Abetlane (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 16:29:19, 21 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by

I am requesting assistance and relief from the heavy-handed treatment by the two reviewers of my proposed article on Leadership-as-practice, most recently by Nightenbelle. I have asked for an impartial review unbiased from prior reviews that my article is not sufficiently encyclopedic. The reviewer does not seem to understand the concept of dispute resolution, which means that after my prior changes, I am not looking to make further changes until I receive such unbiased, polite, good faith, and unattacking review. It strikes me that reviewers need not be imperialistic in wikipedia in their demand that there be changes or else! In some cases like this one, especially where dispute resolution is called for, there could be a need to solicit a second or alternative review. This is my current request because I firmly believe that my entry is compliant with the call for encyclopedic prose. (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I have impartially reviewed the draft and concur with the other reviewers that it does indeed read like an essay and not like an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, you must not accuse other editors of bias, 'imperialism' (?), etc., at least not without solid evidence.
Moreover, you really cannot presume to know anything about the knowledge or experience of others. The reviewer(s) may well be experts in the very subjects in question, for all you know.
You may also wish to take a moment to reflect on the fact that while you 'firmly believe' your draft is suitable, four reviewers (and now the fifth, Theroadislong; I myself am also minded to agree) have felt otherwise. Does that not tell you anything? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

September 22Edit

09:08:14, 22 September 2022 review of draft by Philip TorchinskyEdit

The article in question meets notability requirements. A reason to publish it is that the main product of this company is a well-known Liberica JDK, mentioned on the OpenJDK page. The latter is an essential part of Wikipedia and a source of basic knowledge for millions of Java developers, including those who have just started studying software engineering. OpenJDK page mentions all companies developing various JDKs, and BellSoft does not have its page, while others do. It seems to be essential to fill this gap. There is no specific reason to exclude BellSoft from the list.

What I already ensured to make the article better: 1. The sources I used in the article are NOT only the publications made by the article's subject. 2. The article has a neutral tone. It describes facts. It does not encourage anyone to use any of the mentioned products. 3. The article helps people unfamiliar with the topic navigate the ocean of terms and products. As a software developer, I think it is important to provide people with information that helps them to choose the correct version of whatever they need, based on their requirements.

I also disagree with a comment about WP:COI, because I have never been working for BellSoft, I don't benefit from their service anyhow, and I even don't use their products. The reason for me to create this article is to contribute to better understanding of JDK landscape.

Please help to make the article better. I appreciate your advice very much.

Philip Torchinsky (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Philip Torchinsky Please see other stuff exists. That other companies have articles does not mean this company gets one too.
An article is not for merely telling about the topic and what it does. It must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Not every company merits an article, even within the same field. It depends.on the sources.
The customers section should be completely removed, unless you have sources that discuss the importance of a company using this company's product. Most of the rest seems to be about the company's products and not the company itself. If no independent reliable sources give this company significant coverage, it would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Philip Torchinsky: this draft was declined for being promotional, not for lack of notability. But since you bring that up, I would very much argue that it doesn't meet notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, at least not in light of the sources cited. Can you explain how you see notability being demonstrated here? (And having a 'well-known' product etc. is not it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 11:07:00, 22 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by BookNerdPBSEdit

I have reviewed the criteria for notability several times for a draft article I have submitted R P Anand. The entry meets at least two criteria for notability of an academic: That he was President of a significant society and that he influenced a significant movement in the field. I included five sources for the latter and two sources for the former point.

Reviewers claim, without specifying, that the sources aren't independent. I've reviewed the criteria for independence and cannot find an issue with the sources. They are other academics and jurists that are notable in the field that he created. If you are trying to demonstrate influence, you are going to have to cite sources that were influenced by his work. That is how academic writing works. This does not make them non-independent according to wikipedia criteria.

At this point, it feels like bullying by reviewers who are disregarding the independence and quality of the sources without explanation. The sources cited are the leading journals in international law, renowned scholars, and distinguished judges.

I started writing this entry bc I am a scholar of international law. Third World Approaches to International Law is an important academic movement of critical legal approaches to the study of international law. It felt like this was a significant scholar who needed a page. I am an academic, trained to find sources to support each and every sentence I write. I stand behind the quality and independence of the sources included in this article to demonstrate the veracity of each sentence included.

BookNerdPBS (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BookNerdPBS: firstly, I would ask you not to make baseless accusations of bullying etc.; those will not be appreciated by anyone.
Secondly, I wish you had first presented the draft as it currently stands, not the earlier version I reviewed a week ago, because this is clearly an improvement in many respects. I might have accepted this on sight (minus some peacockery, perhaps), and we wouldn't be here now.
Another way to look at this would be to say that because you have received feedback — one might say, pushback! — on your draft, it is now in a better shape than it perhaps would have been without going through this review process.
Anyway, I have an IRL commitment starting soon, but if no one has looked into this in more detail by the time I'm finished, I will review the draft again when I'm back. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Dear DoubleGrazing
I appreciate the second review. You are correct, the draft is much improved from the original you reviewed. That is why I was surprised that it kept being rejected by additional reviewers after adding lots of additional details and sources. The only things I added after the third rejection was additional sources of reviews of his books. But these sources honestly seem excessive. Hence my impression that subsequent reviewers were rejecting without evaluating the merits of the piece, claiming without evidence that it did meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability with multiple independent sources to back up those specific points when it clearly did.
Thanks BookNerdPBS (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm replying here as well as in response to your comment. It looks like the article was accepted, so thank you.
Just a quick follow-up note as I hope this will help your review of entries in the future. The vast majority of sources cited are academic journal articles. They are pieces of scholarship, not the personal recounting of the author. These are secondary sources as commonly understood and as described by Wikipedia, quote below with language in bold that describes the type of sources I cited here. So I don't really agree with your assessment that all but one of the sources are primary sources.
"A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." BookNerdPBS (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for educating me on the degrees of sourcing, as pertains to Wikipedia's concept of notability. I really do mean it.
Now, can we drop this? I've accepted your draft; what more do you want? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

13:29:34, 22 September 2022 review of submission by 2601:182:D17F:B120:A55C:9D64:4A63:67D9Edit

This post is meant to be informational. I was careful not to use any promotional language. Let me know if this description could be edited to reach a higher standard. Thank you. 2601:182:D17F:B120:A55C:9D64:4A63:67D9 (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an investor-fishing brochure at best. It'd need to be rewritten from scratch, based on in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that are written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 18:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Request on 14:55:29, 22 September 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by LouisRedfern7Edit

This is my first time creating a Wikipedia page and I am trying to sort this out for my father who owns the business. I have done all I needed to do in terms of claiming I am related to the business. However, I believe I am struggling with inputting correct citations and everything. Please may someone help me with this to be able to make the page public. I am more than happy to answer as many questions as needed and to do as told to get this Wikipedia page up and running. Kind regards.

LouisRedfern7 (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

15:42:08, 22 September 2022 review of draft by SpesshotEdit

I h Spesshot (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

e re-assembled the draft entry (title: Richard Novick) and the text is now complete, with references cited at the appropriate points in the text, in my sandbox. I am still not sure whether the referencing is adequate, and do not know which, if any, statements still need referencing. Thanks for your help, Spesshot (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Spesshot

@Spesshot: in answer to your question whether the referencing is adequate — no, it emphatically is not. Firstly, in articles on living people, inline citations are required, whereas this draft has none; see ILC and REFB for advice.
Secondly, as to what needs to be referenced, the answer is pretty much everything! Every material statement, anything potentially contentions, and all private personal details such as DOB and family members, must be clearly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

September 23Edit

00:55:05, 23 September 2022 review of draft by AddingcontentagainEdit

I'm trying the enter details about a research conference, following the template for similar conferences, e.g. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. I'm using the same type of sources that are used for articles about other conference (see the one linked above), but my new entry gets rejected claiming my sources aren't independent enough.

It seems that the article I'm trying to add is getting inconsistent rejections when compared to other articles about similar events.

It would be helpful to know what this inconsistency is due to, and what I need to do in order to get my entry accepted.

Addingcontentagain (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Addingcontentagain: you shouldn't compare your draft to other articles which may exist out there; see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (And thank you for flagging up the ACM article, I have tagged it accordingly.)
We assess notability according to the relevant guidelines, in this case the general WP:GNG one. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites only primary sources, and fairly close ones (close to the subject, that is) at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

02:39:59, 23 September 2022 review of draft by Taras1818Edit

Taras1818 (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Taras1818 You don't ask a question, but I've looked at your draft and declined it. I will also propose it for deletion, because of the copyvios in it. Should it survive that, and you plan on resubmitting it, I would suggest that you first comprehensively address the reasons why this has been declined several times, because I don't think this will otherwise be given many more opportunities. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Taras1818 The draft was deleted as a copyright infringement. (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

06:37:36, 23 September 2022 review of submission by ChiranthchirusiraEdit

please some one publish this page Chiranthchirusira (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chiranthchirusira: this draft has been rejected and will not be reviewed again, let alone published. I will nominate it for deletion, however. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

06:41:41, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Krishna essaseEdit

This content belongs to Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. The content on this page is valid, real and very much important for the visibility and the credibility of the organization Essae-Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. Krishna essase (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Krishna essase: you don't ask a question, but suffice to say this draft has been rejected, and speedy deletion has been requested. The draft is purely promotional, referenced only with the company's own website, with no indication of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

07:36:08, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Danny895Edit

Hi, this article has been updated but I cannot see how to actually publish it.

At the original time of rejection in 2020, this person was not elected. The person in question has now become an elected official with relevance to the general public, so it should warrant inclusion.

I believe it does satisfy the criteria for notability, but would appreciate any help.


Danny895 (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Danny895: to what has he been elected? Local government, which a quick glance suggests this refers to, does not qualify for automatic notability per WP:NPOL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

07:47:53, 23 September 2022 review of submission by Dundee7476Edit

  Courtesy link: Draft:Rahman Mustafayev


It's been more than 2 months since I sent you my modified version and I still haven't heard back.

Is there anything delaying this check?

FYI, this page was created on Wikipedia France and there was no problem.

Thank you for your return.

Best regards. Dundee7476 (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dundee7476: there was no delay, it was just in the pool awaiting review. I have now declined it, for lack of inline referencing (several paragraphs unsupported), and added some links to advice on referencing.
The fact that this was accepted to the French-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as every language version is their own project with their own rules and requirements as to notability, referencing, etc. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

13:59:06, 23 September 2022 review of submission by JohnessoneEdit

Hi! Please help us understand better why our recent request was rejected.

We included similar references to other companies active in our industry who have pages on Wikipedia (such as Elastic Path and commercetools).

Any detailed guidance would be much appreciated.


Johnessone (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Johnessone: this was rejected, because there is no indication that the subject is notable. The content mainly just states that this business exists, without giving any real reason why they should be included in a global encyclopaedia. The sources cited are mostly, if not only, routine business reporting.
You should not model your article on any existing ones, as they may suffer from problems that you don't want to replicate. You should instead familiarise yourself with the relevant guidelines for article creation, in this case WP:COMPANY / WP:ORGCRIT, and ensure that your content and referencing comply with those. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

16:34:43, 23 September 2022 review of submission by AwesomeAlex261Edit

AwesomeAlex261 (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Go on, then, @AwesomeAlex261 — what's your question? :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

18:10:17, 23 September 2022 review of draft by LubnaAminEdit

I do not understand why my work which is written in my own words is considered a violation of copyrights, I have linked any sources I have used however, the editing box on Wikipedia is not an easy tool to use. I wish you could highlight which areas that needs fixing. I want to become a part of Wikipedia's editing team, so I will only understand if you explain to me.

Please note, I had another account a few years ago and I did not face this issue.

LubnaAmin (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

LubnaAmin If you wrote something on another website, it is subject to that websites copyright and you can't simply copy it to here, you must properly donate it, please see WP:DCP. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
There isn't a specific "editing team", you are an "editor" merely through your participation. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

September 24Edit

01:32:14, 24 September 2022 review of submission by Ginger RockyEdit

In addition to playing 3 Professional Seasons in Puerto Rico's top Pro League, Kylan Guerra was also an NCAA Division 2 first team All-American. Ginger Rocky (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

None of which matter for notability. Playing a professional-level game in a top league does not confer notability anymore. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

03:30:13, 24 September 2022 review of submission by ReadyonEdit

I am talking about a new music genre here which comes out once in a decade why is this not important mate ?

Readyon (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Readyon: thanks for flagging that up; I've requested deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

05:33:10, 24 September 2022 review of submission by Billapartygang123Edit

Hi, I created this draft but now I want to delete it whole please help. Billapartygang123 (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Billapartygang123: you can place the G7 speedy deletion tag {{Db-author}} on the draft, which tells the administrators that the author has requested deletion. I can't promise this will work, as other editors have also contributed to it, but it's worth a try since most, maybe even all, of the substantive edits seem to be yours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)